Yes it's fine

It's fairly normal to ask someone to proof

-read your resume or to help with layout, so there's nothing wrong there.

There's so many resumes sent out with elementary mistakes, so another set of eyes really helps in getting things right.

If the recruitment is happening via an agency, the hiring company won't see your resume, they'll just see a copy/paste of the relevant parts (recruiters won't want the client seeing your contact details).

In general, it's far more important to get the facts right than for it to look pretty.

Is it acceptable to format a cv for someone else?

Yes, of course.

I help friends write and format their resumes all the time.

Nobody knows or cares who wrote or formatted your CV/resume.

They only care that it accurately reflects you, your background, and your career.

I can't imagine that an interviewer would ask about a nice resume.

But if they did, saying "Well, I had a friend who is really good at it

give me a hand.

" is a perfectly acceptable answer.

Yes , its fine to help someone with their resume/cv.

I have been complimented on my resume for its format and such in the past, but never has an interviewer asked how I came up with it.

It is very low risk in my opinion to whomever your helping.

In fact, there are several companies who make a living by creating resumes for professionals at all levels.

Their resume is the first step, the golden ticket if you will, to earn the interview.

I would do whatever I felt necessary to make mine as solid as possible.

Formatting and content both matter .

Think of it as their first impression with the potential employer.

Do what you can to make is as good as it can be.

Just to go against the grain...

It can possibly be a problem, IF.

You use words or phraseology that the person doesn't normally use You embellish

The person cannot recite it from memory.

If he doesn't know what's on his own resume, that's a BIG red flag

It doesn't "fit" the job applied for.

You want your resume to be fine tuned to hit the requirements of the job for which you are applying.

To avoid this, make sure you go over the CV as you are making the changes, and the person understands them and can go over it with you line by line and memorize it.

Edited to add: To expand on my point #1.

If I am interviewing someone and the language at the interview doesn't match what I've seen on the resume, it's going to make me think that something is wrong, that I'm not interviewing the same person I saw on the resume.

It is absolutely acceptable to proofread someone's CV/resume.

However, if you are really asking about "crafting" a resume, that's a different matter.

By "crafted" resume I mean a type of resume, which, while not making any obviously false claims, presents the facts in a misleading manner.

For example, a resume may suggest that the candidate is a rocket scientist, while actually he worked at Goddard Space Flight Center as a janitor.

So, what can go bad is that the reviewer (or should we call him co-author?) might have his best intentions and embellish the candidate's profile, but the hiring manager would not be impressed.

The remedy is simple - stick to the facts, and ask yourself, if you were the hiring manager yourself, would you like this candidate?

Limited answer - this is not fine if...

If the C.V. or job description describes the person as being good at design, formatting documents, or experienced with LaTeX, then the person should format it themselves.

In this (very limited) case, the implicit assumption the company will come away with is that you are presenting your C.V. as an example of your work.

Having someone else format it for you is likely to lead them to a false conclusion.

If not in this situation, see any of the other answers.

Question: Assume that someone (friend, family) asks you to format his/her CV. They typically might want to apply to a job where text processing etc. is not one of the key requirements and they ask you to do it in order to have a nice result and/or to win time, although they could probably do it themselves in Word.  Can it be negative for them? Imagine for instance that the interviewer asks them how they made such a nice CV.

Is it acceptable to format a CV for someone else?

Yes, it is fine to help someone with their CV.

It is generally agreed that it's perfectly acceptable to help someone format their CV and it's unlikely to have any negative repercussions for them.


My concern is that if I send my application to an employer through email, it is likely that he/she would not be able to read it thoroughly, given the number of application emails he/ she receives.

But would sending my application through a courier hurt my chances of landing the job?

Bad idea.

You would look foolish.

And you probably wouldn't increase the chances that your resume would be read any differently than any other resume.

Just because a courier delivers a resume, that doesn't mean it gets read any differently.

Almost certainly it would have to go through HR first (to get logged and initially screened).

And then it would just be in the same pile as all the others.

As @ChristopherEstep points out, HR may well not even know that it was couriered.

The courier delivers it to reception or receiving and then it just gets put in the same pile as the rest of the mail for HR.

The only exception would be those "creative" jobs where it might be an advantage to have your resume "make an entrance" via courier, pajama-gram, or carrier pigeon.

But those are few and far between.

I would not do this, as most HR folks would find this annoying.

Most HR departments either have an HR System ( tied into their online HR\Career portal ) , or at the very least would want your credentials in electronic format for easy distribution between departments.

Take a look at this older, but still relevant article Resume in the mail ( or courier ) These days, most hiring managers vastly prefer an electronic version of your resume.

In fact, a lot of companies can't even get your resume into their applicant tracking system unless you E-mail it.

Even when an employer does accept snail-mailed resumes, providing only a hard copy makes it harder for the employer to share it with the various decision-makers.

I'll frequently E-mail a candidate's resume to a colleague to ask for their input; if I only have a hard copy, it can be scanned in, but it adds an extra step to the process when your goal should be to make it easier, not more onerous, for the employer to hire you.

There was a time when such a creative approach would be well received.

Those times are past, however, and for several reasons.

Everything is electronic now.

There are no longer piles of resumes being mailed in, everything is routed through HR systems, or at least emailed and routed to hiring managers Recent years of high unemployment have soured employers to the creative approach.

It's been done so many times that you're no longer seen as creative, just as another kook trying to get attention.

It's much more likely to get lost.

Any resume sent by mail still needs to get scanned into an electronic system.

You will be remembered, but not fondly.

Even if the person who receives your resume bothers to scan it in, you'll be known as the person who created more work for him

You will be seen as a nuisance.

For all the reasons listed above, A better approach is through networking, and "stealth networking". if you can find someone to sent it "attention to" or if you can call and ask a few questions of HR, you'll make a human connection to a real person.

Try this approach instead.

The only time to do this would be if a paper application is required (rare but it still happens) and it's the only way to meet the deadline.

Even then the courier-like services provided by the post office are most likely to be appropriate, unless your postal service is unreliable.

You've successfully realized that submitting your resume via email or online portal is a crappy way of applying.

The problem is that a courier isn't going to be any more effective.

At best it might be seen as cutesy, but it's more likely to be seen as weird, given that 99 percent of resumes will arrive in electronic form and be sent on to hiring managers from HR in electronic form.

Carrying something down the hall or having to scan it before emailing might be the hassle that causes it to end up in the trash.

If you want a leg up on the competition, the solution is to know someone who knows the hiring manager.

For example, if you're a programmer, finding a programmer in your professional contacts who knows the hiring manager and can vouch for you is a great way to skip over the entire hiring process.

A second-best approach would be to get a headhunter or recruiter who knows is familiar with your background to do an introduction to HR and get you past to the hiring people.

This approach is common in tech, but not so much in other fields.

A better question would be "In addition to sending my resume by e-mail, should I ALSO send it by mail or courier (and in the cover letter, make it clear that I also applied electronically")?

I don't know if that's necessarily the best approach, but it has all the advantages that the other posters say about e-mailing resumes; plus you get a bit more attention.

The only disadvantage is you might still look like a kook.

Question: My concern is that if I send my application to an employer through email, it is likely that he/she would not be able to read it thoroughly, given the number of application emails he/ she receives.   But would sending my application through a courier hurt my chances of landing the job?

Is it a good idea to have a courier deliver your resume and credentials to a potential employer?

This is not recommended as the HR person might find it annoying. You should only do it if a paper application is a requirement.

The general consensus is that this is a bad decision unless it is the absolute only way of ensuring that your application arrives on time.

It is generally agreed that this is a bad decision.

The only situation that this could be advisable is if this were the only way of ensuring that your application arrived on time.


No It's not ethical.

You were acting of your own free will when you signed the contract that now makes you stay another month.

It's not a hardship or their doing.

You did that.

In addition, you still get paid.

You'd be the first to complain if the company would take the same stance ("he's leaving anyway, why hold up our side of the contract").

The ethical way would be to talk to your company .

Notice periods are contractual.

Any contract can be changed if both parties consent.

If your company allows it, you could have a shorter notice period or none at all.

Long story short: keep your promises.

Especially those you gave in writing.

Breaking them because you don't felt like keeping them in the first place is not ethical at all.

While I fully understand where the lack of motivation comes from I have to say that indulging it to the point where you're not working is unethical.

If you were asking about refusing to do overtime (paid or unpaid)

then that would be different, I don't think many people would expect an employee working out their notice to be going an extra inch, let alone an extra mile, but your question reads as referring to your normal duties.

You know, that thing that they pay you for .

Imagine the flip side of this question (from the employer's perspective):

An employee has resigned from the organisation, and is currently in the notice period.

I don't have any interest in paying them during the notice period.

Is this ethical?

They have already quit the job and have to stay here 1 more month, so is it ok not to pay them?

Anyway they're leaving, and I certainly have no interest in paying them.

Also this is an employee that I didn't like working for us, from the start, just wanted to get rid somehow from the beginning.

See what I mean?

From a pragmatic point of view you have to consider that how you behave during your notice period may still affect your references and depending on your location and industry potentially your professional reputation as well.

Is it really worth risking compromising any of that for sake of one month more of working there and being professional? Remember that unless you have a lot of handover to do or projects that you are expected to complete in that time your workload will naturally tail off towards the end of that month anyway.

The problem this will bring is burning bridges.

More than likely you will get another job (I hope) and will need references.

What happens when they ask for a reference from you last company?

It is the same for being lazy, when future companies ask for references, the last month of your laziness will stick in your previous employers mind.

It is not worth it.

Best advice is to stick it out for the last month, keep your head up and knuckle down.

A month will fly by and you will not jeopardise any future endeavours.

Not only non-ethical but also illegal.

You are still oblidged to fulfill your contract.

The company has full rights to expect from you engagement and performance.

Reluctance to perform your tasks gives your organization the rights to terminate your contract because of negligence.

Being fired is a red light in your career, it also means, you have no right for positive certificate (Arbeitszeugnis). P.S. because you haven't given your location, I assume it's Germany, but most aspects should be similar in other countries.

Ethical, no, but it may be practical and pragmatic.

If you knowingly agreed to a notice period, then it's unethical to just discard it for your own purposes.

However, this is actually done fairly often.

It's not a huge deal usually and many businesses will march an employee off the premises as soon as they quit or are fired without having an amicable notice period.

My advice is to focus on your future not the company which you are leaving and do what is best for yourself.

Serving a notice period can be beneficial, but usually only if it's an agreeable situation.

I've left more than one job with zero notice and waving a finger at all and sundry, never lost any sleep over it.

There is a difference between formal ethics and personal ethics, while it is ok for some to overstep the first, if you overstep the second it's a downward spiral.

The 'ethical' part has been answered in other answers, but I think what you're really asking is 'help me get out of here with the least amount of trouble/pain/hardship/time wastage/...'.

I suggest you ask them if they're willing to accept a month's salary as compensation for leaving early.

This is sometimes preferred if you have another company willing to accept you during that period, and it is better for you to work for them instead.

It's absolutely not ethical, and you should finish up your work while you are still employed, which will likely include some training for your replacement (possibly) and filling people in on what you do so that there isn't a gap in your work when you leave - the benefit to you for this is continuing to get paid, and keeping a good rapport with the company for future career opportunities.

However...you should have some vacation time saved up from your time working for the company - so with permission from your manager, you could 'leave'

early - just make sure you run this by your manager first, for the above reasons, and because doing otherwise would definitely be unethical.

Question: I have resigned from an organisation, and am currently in the notice period. I don't have any interest in working during the notice period. Is this ethical?  I have already quit the job and have to stay here 1 more month, so is it ok to be lazy?  Anyway I'm leaving, and certainly have no interest in working.Also this is an organisation that I didn't like working for, from the start, just wanted to get out somehow from the beginning.

Resigned from organisation. Don't want to work during the notice period. Is this ethical?

This is definitely not ethical and could even be illegal. You should keep working and do whatever is needed to train your replacement or fill people in what you were doing.

The general consensus is that, whilst this lack of motivation is understandable, this is not ethical behaviour and some people would even consider it to be illegal as a breach of contract.

The general consensus is that, whilst this lack of motivation is understandable, it is not ethical to not work your notice period after resigning.

Some people may consider this behaviour to be a breach of contract and therefore illegal.


As a hiring manager I've asked questions like this in the past and from my perspective

I want to hear a story where you had to use your brain to decide on a course of action and how you implemented it.

Was the decision technically sound?

Did you know the path to success, and were you confident?

Were there inter-personal, inter-department, or other 'fuzzy' issues that could have prevented it from being successful?

Can you show me some passion that you were responsible for it?

If you can't think of anything technical that closely relates to the job description, then tell me any story where you made a decision and ran with it.

I can really get a lot out of this answer ...

How you deal with uncertainty, are you motivated to solve problems, can you communicate clearly to me, can you hold my attention from start to finish, do you have the technical and emotional chops to survive in my place of employment, and a few others.

This technique is called "behavioral interviewing."

By asking about a time you actually did something, ideally the interviewer can get a better sense of how you do things than just asking a hypothetical - real life is complex, and they want to know how you deal with real decisions in real environments, where people disagree for good and bad reasons, where the best technical option isn't always the feasible business option...

The best answer to a question like this does showcase your success, but also goes into details about how you overcame issues and conflict (ideally without coming across like a rabid wolverine).

There are plenty of people whose examples provide a questionable thought process - "I wanted to use it because it was new even though it might not have been a good fit/

I wanted to use it even though it was old because I'm familiar with it", "I just went ahead and did it even though others objected because screw them

I gave in to what the lead wanted because who cares anyway"...

You want to project confidence, but confidence that is warranted because you understood the technical and organizational impacts of that choice, you can successfully negotiate technical decisions with others, and you can show good judgement and select implementations that will be successful.

workplace.stackexchange.com/users/16695/mxyzplk - SE stop being evil

Anyone seasoned in the industry will have hundred of such stories.

It is a fairly easy question to answer, and it is not a trick question.

For me it is much a more saner question than filler BS questions as "were you see yourself in 5 years..." or "what are your strengths".

I will take pleasure in answer such a question with a couple of examples.

In reality, I just have to ask how much time they want me to spend on that question, running the risk of taking too long.

Those kind of questions are mostly to gauge your maturity, line of experience and thinking.

Even when around new work mates, we usually share these kind of war stories over a cup of coffee.

(cultural note, here we tend more to gather together over coffee than beer)

Is this a kind of a "trick" question to see if one jumps into giving a technical answer?

How should one give a proper answer to this?

Not really.

When this -very common, IMHO-

question comes around the idea is to get a feel of what kind of things matter to you when making a complex decision, and to see which points do you prioritise.

It is true that the technical level at which you give your answer matters (as with experience you should get better at understanding what is the role in the organisation of the person that it is in front of you - and that's a valuable communication skill), but it shouldn't be the most important part

Instead, the "trick" is more on showing that you have been in a relatively complex situation in the past, where you have been considering multiple options , and where you finally ended up making a sound decision .

An answer with something like that should be more than adequate.

A question like this can also help to weed out candidates who are just pretending.

When people make technical decisions, if they researched the decisions and implemented them, they usually end up knowing the tiny details as to why the decision was made, how it was implemented and how any issues related to this decision were resolved.

With people who pretend to know, they will try to provide very little detail and will usually get stuck when the interviewer begins to pry.

Question: What is a good way to answer a question such as "Tell us about a technical decision you had to make in the past" during an interview for a software development job?   Is this a trick question to see if the interviewee jumps into giving a technical answer? What would be a proper answer to this?

Answering "Tell us about a technical decision you had to make in the past"

This is a question about overcome issues and conflict to make a sound decision. It is not a trick question.

This sort of question is not generally considered to be a trick question. The most appropriate answer would be simply to describe how you approached a past problem, what solutions you identified and how you chose the one to pursue.

The best answer to this question would be to simply explain how your approached the problem, what potential solutions you identified and how you chose the one to pursue.

This is not generall considered a trick question.


Probably the best approach is to make being somewhere else feel more natural and appealing - difficult to be specific without seeing the office but I would try:

Place a comfy-looking chair opposite your desk (

angle the chair so as to be slightly diagonal to your desk to signal that it's "open").

If the people visiting you are needing to see your screen then make sure it's mounted on a monitor arm or something similar that will allow you to easily rotate it so that both you and the person in the chair can see it.

If you anticipate that the person is going to be in your office for more than a few seconds smile, gesture at the chair and invite them to "take a seat" - you're then putting them in the subconscious position of having to refuse your polite invitation if they want to not sit there, and in many cultures the majority of people will prefer not to start an interaction on a confrontational note (even a minor one)

You have to ask yourself, why are they going to the trouble to walk around the desk and stand behind you?

This doesn't seem like normal behaviour.

Especially if you've created a cramped and uncomfortable place, moving your desk close to the wall and put in obstacles to stop them coming close (bags, plants on the ground, furniture, coat stand, etc), and maybe followed other people's suggestions to put in a chair or create space for people to stand in front of the desk.

But is there a particular reason for it?

If it's only a few people, why do they do it and nobody else?

If you consider this, then you could work out the specific reason and take counter-measures.

Maybe they don't want to stand by the door.

That's understandable: they might be creating an obstruction, or in the way of somebody else coming in, or in a draft.

Or maybe they are using your office as a place to hide?

Are they wanting to be somewhere nice, such as by a radiator/air-con, or a bowl of sweets, or to look at your desk toys/photos/novelties, or to look out your window?

Maybe being behind you is a comfortable position: they like to lean against a wall, or sit on the edge of something.

In that case, you could put something up against the wall or attached to the wall, or move what they're sitting on, or provide a chair/space.

Maybe they are wanting to see your screen or check up on you.

Consider moving it, or ponder why they feel the need to check up on you.

A less pleasant possibility is it's some form of sexual harassment, trying to lean in close, see down clothing, touch.

(Or similarly, it could be bullying or intimidation by a boss who likes to tower over underlings and physically intimidate them.)

In some cases, rearranging your office will be sufficient, but that isn't necessarily the case (and if they're being sleazy and pressing up against you, narrowing the space will only make it worse).

In other cases, you may have to deal with other workplace issues (trust, boundaries, etc).

Finally, if you really think someone is being inappropriate or is making you feel seriously uncomfortable, it is legitimate to say something.

You could make it light-hearted ("Why so friendly?

What are you looking for?") or if it's more serious escalate it to a manager or HR.

What your visitors want, is access.

They don't want to talk to you from the other side of a desk, they want to be on your side, both metaphorically and physically.

So allow for a way for them to come over to your side, without having to walk around to behind you.

Set up your office so you don't face the door, but rather have your side to the door.

Have a chair for your visitor on that side, so the visitor can sit and you can swivel around in your chair to face them.

If you put your monitor on an arm, you can turn it to show your visitor something if needed.

Sit with your back against the wall, as close to it as possible.

Backpack on the floor on the open side will also give them less room.

Have you considered strategic placement of plants?

Most people won't stand in the middle of a ficus spread.

If you really want to make it difficult, get something with thorns or spikes.

A barrel cactus on a stand behind where they tend to stand will dissuade most people.

They can cause injury if you bump into them so if you are a little clumsy or forgetful you might want to go with something less dangerous.

A heavy pot might be a good choice if they aren't getting it and will attempt to move it out of the way.

Get a convex mirror and place it on your monitor.

Works great on the psyche. https://www.newegg.com

Product/Product.aspx?Item=9SIAHNG7VN3708&ignorebbr=1&nm_mc=KNC-GoogleMKP-PC&cm_mmc=KNC-GoogleMKP-PC-

-pla-

aw.ds

I had missed the hovering over part and had assumed the offenders were behind OP for which a convex mirror.

But I have a solution for the hovering over aspect as well.

Have a wireless camera/wired camera that sticks on the top of your cube facing outside, towards the door and also capturing activity on your cube.

The immediate response would be for people to shy away from cameras.

Both the convex mirror and the webcam ideas are at my work place and the convex mirrror personally deters me

and I have people talk to me about the webcam as well

(since he is a colleague of mine).

So, I am certain it will deter most folks if not everyone.

https://www.amazon.com/Wyze-Indoor-Wireless-Camera-Vision/dp/B076H3SRXG/ref=sr_1_6?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1541180803&sr=1-6&keywords=wireless+camera or something like this that runs on battery https://www.amazon.com/FREECAM-Monitor-Wireless-Rechargeable-Security-Surveillance/dp/B075M8JJKB/ref=sr_1_8?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1541180875&sr=1-8&keywords=wireless+camera+battery

Question: I have my office set up so I am facing the door.  There are several people who insist on walking around my desk, putting them in uncomfortable proximity, and allowing them to hover over me. Is there a way to set up my office to discourage these people from coming around my desk?  I think there must be psychological tricks I can use to make the office space less inviting to them.

How can I set up my office to discourage people from standing behind me?

Have your side to the door and place an object on the floor to limit space. You can have your back close to the wall. Make sure your screen can be rotated so they can see it if they need to.

There are a number of options available, including orientating your desk so that there is no need to move behind you or placing objects on the floor, like plants, to obstruct an easy path behind your desk. If people need to see your screen, you could mount it on a rotating arm, and finally, if you really want to discourage any unusual behaviour, you could mount a visible camera in your office cubicle.

You could consider angling your desk to make it seem more 'open' to visitors so that they have no need to move behind your desk.

You good simply move your desk as close to the wall as possible so that there is no space behind you to stand.

You could place obstacles on the floor, such as plants or a backpack to discourage people from moving behind your desk.

If people need to see your monitor screen, you could always have mounted on a rotating arm so that you can face it towards them.

Attach a camera that captures activity around your desk to discourage people from unusual activity.


The best way to approach this is to find someone in your personal network who you could tap for interviews as an interview consultant, or go through a recruiting agency that can do some pre-screening for you.

Since you are small, you don't need to get too sophisticated in the screening as you likely won't attract any heavy hitters, and if you did, they might be bored.

If you go the recruiter route, be sure that they screen for basic competence (online exams, personal interviews, et cetera), then have them send you a pool of candidates that you can screen to see if they are a good fit.

Is there any chance to get a problem set including solutions?

No.

At least not one that would do you any good.

Anything I write here

your applicant could read and it would be meaningless that they easily answer the questions.

Also, that really isn't in scope for this forum.

If you search, you'll find sets of these questions but remember that your applicants can perform the same search you did.

Since we all don´t have an IT background it´s difficult to really check on the quality of the applicants.

Yes, but not impossible.

If you have some knowledge of your existing code you can show them some of it and ask how they would implement something new.

Another answer mentioned using recruiters, and this is a good second option if you showing them code is impractical.

Well, the best way to recognise a good developer (in a particular skillset), is to have an existing good developer (with that skillset) to do that for you.

But of course, this is a bootstrapping problem, you don't already have that first good developer.

Here are two kinds of approaches:

Find a good developer to give you some advice

Ok, you might not already be employing a good developer, but that's not to say you can't use one.

If you have some friends who are good developers, you can ask them to give you a hand (and offer to pay them!).

After all - who gave you the idea to use React and Node?

Ask them.

You could go to a Node/React Meetup event, network, and basically if the speakers seem competent, talk to them.

Offer them 2x the hourly rate you would be willing to pay for a developer, for them to help you find a developer - help you filter out results and interview the developer.

That's going to be easy money well spent, getting a bad developer is going to cost you far more.

You don't even need to know the person IRL, someone online should be able to conduct a review of their Github account and/or set some tests for them.

Doing it yourself Do they have a Github account?

Check that they have been writing React code on it.

Check out their Stack Overflow profile - are they actively asking/answering questions?

Are their questions sensible and not 'do my homework for me'?

Note that asking questions in itself isn't a sign of a bad developer, IMO.

I have about 200 questions on my profile -

and I think I'm a decent developer.

Do they have a portfolio of websites they have created?

Are they any good?

There are a number of assessments you could use for that, have a look at devskiller website for a sample for NodeJS tests or a free alternative .

Before progressing to interview people I would ask them to do an online assessment on a testing website.

If you are afraid that they may cheat ask people to sit test in house and accommodate extra 30 mins before the interview.

IMHO, your first step should be an IT manager and only then a developer, or some kind of combination of two.

Be ready for lower quality or higher salary expectations than you have spent on outsource.

Spending money on consultants for task specific or time-limited contracts could be frustrating, and urge to limit expenses is always high.

But you pay for developer skill-set and experience, that rarely be available to smaller company or will be too expensive to employ including salary , employee cost and benefits.

P.S.Down-voting without comment is strange, please comment for discussion P.P.S@SambalMinion OP question

actually points out larger swarm of questions and major policy shift in the company from outsourcing to staffing development branch.

And my answer pointed out problems that can be avoided, also mentioning outsourcing cost / quality ration that need to be taken in to the account

Question: We are a small company and looking for a full-stack developer (NodeJS) with focus on Node and React. Since we all don´t have an IT background it´s difficult to really check on the quality of the applicants.  Is there any chance to get a problem set including solutions?

How can I identify coding skills without any IT background?

You can find online assessments on testing websites. You could also find a developer outside of your company to assist with interviewing or give you advice.

There are websites which offer test materials which might help you assess an applicant's skills. However, the best option is likely to be to find an expert, whether a friend or a consultant, who can help you assess an applicant's skillset.

You could find a developer, whether it be a friend or a consultant, to provide you with advice and help you assess an applicants suitability.

There are sites online which provide tests that might be suitable for assessing applicants.


Could be harmless, could be bad.

It's clearly significant:

Written invitation and HR presence means it's something official where HR makes sure that all laws and procedures are followed.

Most likely a formal change to your work arrangements.

How to prepare: Keep your eyes and ears open.

Are there any financial troubles, reorganizations, layoffs, acquisition, etc.

happening?

Make sure you are up to date on the state of the company and the business Be prepared to listen a lot and say little.

Politely nodding your head, mumbling "I see".

Don't say "yes" or "no".

Ask questions, especially if you don't 100% understand what they are saying.

"Can you clarify?".

"What does that mean specifically", "What are options for the next step", etc.

Your boss and HR have a huge information advantage, so your main goal is to learn what is there to be learned and buy some time to digest the information and formulate your own strategy how to deal with this.

DON'T SIGN ANYTHING in the meeting.

If they give you papers, ask for time to thoroughly read through them.

Prepare for the worst.

This could be a termination meeting.

Make sure that, if push comes to shove, you can leave the same day on short notice.

Clear up personal files and e-mail accounts from work computers.

Clear sign in credentials from browser caches, make sure your personal stuff is ready to go.

Don't stress too much.

It could also be something good.

Preparation is good, but only if it's constructive.

Worrying without doing just makes you more nervous.

Is your company a union company?

If so, check if you have a right to bring a union representative the same way that your boss has someone from HR.

Most likely, you do.

Because the one thing you want to avoid is being in a 2 vs. 1 situation that could turn into a "he said /

she said" conflict.

Announce this before, and treat it as a perfectly normal thing.

If pressed, explain calmly that since you don't know what the meeting is about, you are sure that the presence of the union rep is entirely unnecessary, but you brought him just in case, so no time is lost in fetching him if his presence should turn out to be of advantage.

That doesn't mean this is bad.

It really could be entirely harmless, and the HR person might be there not to check on you, but to check on your boss.

But the point is that you don't know .

So better safe than sorry.

If you don't have a union rep on hand, then @Hilmar wrote a very good answer on how to prepare and behave, especially points #2 and #3.

I would like to press that HR is not your friend.

Whenever HR is included that means change is coming (good or bad).

Unlike other answers, I think that if it's something good, your boss will give you a heads up while waiting for HR's confirmation.

I highly suggest preparing No.4 from

@Hilmar's answer : Prepare for the worst.

This could be a termination meeting.

Make sure that, if push comes to shove, you can leave the same day on short notice.

Clear up personal files and e-mail accounts from work computers.

Clear sign in credentials from browser caches, make sure your personal stuff is ready to go.

Besides @Himlar 's valuable gems, I would like to add the following based on my bad times with biased HR: If anything is going seriously against you, put your disagreement on record in the written form.

If they talk about any damages to the organization, even if you are lured to accept it by indirect indication that they will forgive if you accept, don't get lured.

It is a well known trap.

They may try to provoke you by direct/indirect insults and get something on which disciplinary actions could be taken.

Keep your calm until the meeting is finished.

Keep us posted after the meeting is over.

What it was about and how you handled it.

Do you have any reason to believe that it is not exactly what your manager said?

One-on-one could easily be boilerplate in the letter basically saying the meeting is just for you and not your whole team or department.

Have you signed a new contract with a shift change as your manager indicated?

If I had a contract change, especially with a shift change, with my current employer, this is exactly what I would expect to happen.

HR is more qualified to discuss contract language than your boss.

Since this is a change to your conditions of employment, HR should be present, just like they probably were on your first day of work/orientation.

Question: I have received a letter from my boss saying that a meeting has been arranged for this date and time, and a member of HR will be there.  That is all the letter said.  When I asked the boss what the meeting was about she explained that it is a one-on-one meeting to discuss the contract I signed and talk about the shift change. I'm confused as to why a member of HR is attending on a supposedly one-on-one meeting and no other explanation was given.  How should I prepare for this meeting?

Meeting with the boss one-on-one but a member of HR will be attending

Keep calm and listen carefully. Be prepared to be asked to leave on short notice. Make sure your computer is clear of personal files and passwords.

Without knowing exactly what the meeting is about, the most important thing will be to listen and pay close attention both before and during the meeting. However, you will want to prepare for the worst, just in case, and this means both mentally and physically. You may want to make sure that your belongs are ready to go should you have to leave. But despite this potential risk, you should aim to stay calm and not stress too much, including during the meeting.

You should be prepared to listen and pay close attention.

You may want to make sure that all of your things are ready to go should this turn out to be bad news.

Be mentally and physically prepared for the worst possible news.

Try not to get too stressed, and stay calm throughout the meeting.


Call his bluff.

It would be extremely petty and inappropriate to do that.

I cannot imagine doing it.

One's life would have to be pretty small to do so.

Having said that, if he does call...

so what?

Just tell your boss you got approached by them but turned them down.

At this point it's your word against their word, and you're the one staying at your job.

As a manager, if someone called me and said "hey, rooty, who works for you, got offered a job at my company but they turned it down!

" I would certainly not hold it against rooty.

If anything, I would want to congratulate rooty for making what seems like an obvious good decision to not go work for a company managed by inappropriate and awkward leaders.

Knowing that an employee of mine was thinking about leaving would change nothing.

If someone has a problem, either I can solve it, or I can't.

This is an ongoing process of staying in the loop with employees and addressing issues as they've come up - either your manager is already doing this, or they aren't.

Managers who respond to threats of losing people are generally not the kinds of people you'd want to work for long term anyways.

A friend once relayed a story of threats that resulted in him simply replying, “

If that’s what you think you should do, then that’s what you should do.”

I believe it applies here as well.

It tends to make the other party realize his actions are not terribly concerning to you.

I’d focus more on your view of the work environment and your relationship with your boss.

I’d suggest letting it lie until you hear from your boss.

It is perfectly reasonable for someone to test the waters from time to time.

If your manager deserves to be considered a true leader, he has interest in his people and doesn’t take a slave owner’s view of his team.

It may even make him consider ways to keep you happy where you are.

Just remember very few managers want to hire replacements.

He’s unlikely to sink a lot of time trying to do so over retaining you.

Also, prepare your response.

Be honest.

Maybe focus on the fact that you turned down the offer.

In your own phrasing, perhaps this might work:

“Yes, I test the waters occasionally.

This demonstrates that our company came out on top and serves to reinforce that I’m where I should be.”

To the threats, that manager has now emailed you proof and you plausibly could do more damage to him and his company than he’ll do to you.

Beyond professional networking and company review sites, you have the option of forwarding his email onto his HR department and could probably find higher ups on LinkedIn if you truly wanted to get vindictive.

That sort of escalation does come with other considerations of how he might retaliate, but I wouldn’t say you are wrong for doing so.

And I wouldn’t threaten him back.

I’d either choose to pursue that path or not.

I would suggest that the correct course of action is to escalate this to a higher authority at the hiring firm.

The action this "hiring manager" is taking is very unprofessional and in some jurisdictions may be grounds for you to sue.

You came to them in confidence to explore a job opportunity and attempting to blackmail

you is actual extortion which is a crime if he does it for gain.

Escalating it to a more sensible and professional leader in the hiring organisation will probably result in an apology to you and castigation for the hiring manager.

Perhaps their HR department may be a good place to start.

No matter the course of action taken that you've decided to take, you should consider posting a review on Glassdoor of your experience interviewing with this company A consideration for doing so should be whether this could be traced back to you and whether the company would likely 'get revenge'.

They may potentially have a lot of influence in your industry, particular if it is tight-knit like academia

Depending on your jurisdiction, this may be extortion.

I would consult with a lawyer, you may be able to file criminal charges against the hiring manager or sue for damages if he causes you to be fired from your current company.

Reply to the hiring manager, thanking him for improving your negotiating position with your current boss.

It may not be strictly true, but if you don't seem intimidated, he'll likely assume it isn't the threat he thinks it is.

If he does tell your boss and your boss raises it with you, just let your boss know you are always looking to keep your options open.

Your boss is unlikely to try to get rid of you just because you are job hunting and might look for ways to keep you from leaving since it may be easier to retain you than replace you.

Even if it's not that hard to replace you, it's still more hassle to hire and train a new employee before you've actually left -- unless your boss was already looking to get rid of you.

My response would be as follows: "If you contact my employer, I will no longer have any reason whatsoever not to make your unprofessional email public.

Govern yourself accordingly."

As an attorney I once consulted regarding a threatened legal matter told me, "I can't do anything for you UNTIL <

* other party

*> HAS ACTUALLY DONE SOMETHING.

My advice is to go home, be polite to <* other party *>, and carry on as if nothing is going on BECAUSE

IT

ISN'T.

When <* other party *> has done something, come see me".

(emphasis mine)

Best legal advice I ever got.

IANAL, but if this clown of a prospective employer contacts your current employer, then you may have grounds for legal action - and if your current employer terminates your employment for this reason you may have further grounds for action.

But until something happens act as if nothing has happened because it hasn't .

workplace.stackexchange.com/users/530/Bob Jarvis - Reinstate Monica

Question: I declined a job offer last week for cultural fit reasons, over email, and this morning I received an email back from the hiring manager saying that he's very disappointed in me and he'll be calling my current employer to let them know I'm looking around. Should I try to get ahead of this and tell my manager, or call his bluff?

Company threatening to call my current job after I declined their offer

Call his bluff and let it lie to see if your boss says anything to you.

The best advice in this situation would probably be to do nothing and call the other person's bluff.


It's not normal, length of service is important for lots of things.

Social Security and many other statutory benefits depend on lengthof service in many cases

It may or may not be Illegal that does depend on country

, it's not asign of a good employer in any case.

In some countries, it's not very uncommon.

For example, in Germany, you are asked to resign before you get to sign your new contract.

I had this two times already, one time for a change of working hours and the other time for a promotion.

In both cases, I added a restriction to my resignation letter to just resigned for a new contract to take effect.

It was in both cases needed because you basically have to resign from your current position to get the new contract because of the size of our company in addition to the regulations by the union.

It's unusual.

Once you have a signed contract, you can resign.

But not before.

But even then there is downside.

An internal transfer is better.

Do they do this for external people that they hire?

Demand that they resign from their other job before they are able to sign the contract?

This is very unusual in my experience.

I'm in the US, but not in Texas, and I've never heard of a situation where a company asks you to resign to take another position in the same company.

I've certainly never heard of requiring someone to resign just to pursue such another position within the company.

Having done it myself, I'll say that the normal procedure (at least that I've observed and been through) is that you ask to be considered for a transfer - presumably with your supervisor's knowledge - and interview for the job just like another candidate.

If you get the job, you just transfer; if not, you stay in the job you're in.

(Depending on your boss and the situation, the latter possibility may be awkward, but that's getting off topic.)

You are doing things out of order.

You need to apply for the job, and secure the job first.

Once you have secured the job, then you should resign from your current position, so you can work the new position within the company.

Do not ever resign from a job without having one secured already, ever.

I have done this once in the past where I landed a job in the same company, and then I resigned from the current position I was working at the time.

The only difference is the new position was in a different building.

I have known of only one situation were somebody had to quit the company for what many would view as a internal transfer.

In that case there was a publicly known parent company but the two jobs were in two different subsidiaries.

The issue was that the benefit packages for those two companies were vastly different: one still had a pension, the other didn't; one had a small 401(k) match, the other had a large 401(k); one had unlimited sick leave the other one had 3 days per year.

The parent company spent 3 years merging the two parts of the company due to the vastly different benefits.

The rule to resign only kicked in when you were accepting the new position.

In all other cases I have either experienced, or observed, a person moving internally wasn't required or even asked to quit the company.

I have never heard of having to tell the current manager when applying for a position.

That notice would only happen after accepting the position.

Question: Is it common or Legal for a Company to ask an employee to put in their two weeks in to resign just to apply for a job in a different department within the same company, in the same building?

Being asked to give notice of resigning when I am only transferring to another department

This is very unusual and may be illegal depending on the country. Length of service can be important.

The exact answer to this question may depend on the country you are in. However, many people would consider this to be unusual and, in some countries, it may even be illegal.

Many people would consider this to be unusual.

The answer may depend on the country you are in.

In some jurisidictions, this may even be illegal.


You should allow it, and I have two reasons.

For one, you risk that somebody will get infected, and the whole company is shut down, without having time to set up WFH.And as a second reason, with trainees/freshers, there is very little reason to keep them in your workplace, they don't cost as much, they are not central to your operation.

You are just keeping them around so they can act as potential spreaders.

I have already informed this to higher management and no response has been given yet Ask them again, they have the authority to implement work from home.

You obviously don't.

There's more to it than just a decision, there's a lot of logistics and security that need to be taken into account.

So they may be looking at all the peripherals.

This can take time.

It depends.

Are the trainees able to do their training from home?

Do they have the tools they need?

Can that still get whatever help or instruction they'd be getting from more experienced workers if they were in the office?

If working from home does slow down the training can the company / department / team they work for afford it.

Same goes for the freshers.

Can they still do all their work from home?

Their pace will probably slow down, can the relevant parties afford that?

If they need to work with somebody else on a task are they still able to do so?

If the answer to all these questions is yes

then you absolutely should let them work from home.

If the answer is no to any or all of these questions then you need to analyze the risk vs the reward to determine your decision.

The way I see it you have two options: Dig your head in the sand and wait until your country goes

intolockdown (it will come) Try to get this sorted before that happens If you dig your head into the sand and just wait for it to happen

you'll be totally unprepared for it and will find it really hard to actually work.

If you get all this sorted (remote working I mean) then you'll at least be able to do something.

It's not clear in your message if you are in a position to make this call

but I would suggest even for yourself checking out

how hard it is to work from home as if you leave it too late

you might find there's nothing you can do.

The way I view it is simple.

If you don't trust someone to work from home, how do you trust them to work in an office ?

Yes there are distractions at home, but there are in the office too.

I'm personally more productive when at home as people can't drop my desk for little favours with MS Excel.

Also this situation is very different to the norm, so allow it, it won't last forever.

Question: Background:   All the proper preventive measurements are being taken in the building  All senior members are reporting to the office, and talk is going on to allow work from home (WFH) for all   So should I be making a mistake by allowing WFH/ rejecting WFH?  I have already informed this to higher management and no response has been given yet.  Location:  Hyderabad, India

How can we handle work-from-home requests from trainees/freshers in this coronavirus pandemic?

This is a different situation to the norm and will not last forever.

The exact response to this situation will depend on numerous factors, but, given the exceptional nature of present circumstances, most people would say that you should allow home working.


I wouldn't characterize post-Magna Carta England as having a weak central government.

Compared to the Holy Roman Empire it had a very efficient central government, in which the parliament played an important role alongeside the king.

The early English Parliament already had a House of Commons .

Hence not only the nobility was given rights but the common people too.

Of course, the elections to the House of Commons were far from democractic in the modern sense, with voting rights limited by land or property ownership requirements.

Besides the Magna Carta in 1215, a number of key events in the development of English/British democracy must be noted.

The Second Baron's War in 1264 led to the creation of Simon de Monfort's "model parliament".

Although the rebellion eventually failed, the parliament set a precedent for the future.

The English Civil War in 1642 led to the temporary establishment of the Commonwealth of England , a republic.

Besides early republican ideals, an important factor in the revolution was religious ( Puritan ).

The Restoration in 1660 returned the monarchy but the power balance permanently shifted towards the parliament.

The Glorious Revolution of 1688 resulted in the establishment of William III and Mary II in place of James II .

The further (significant) weakening of the monarchy was codified in the Bill of Rights of 1689 .

The Glorious Revolution marked a clear victory of the social contract theory of government over the divine right of kings .

The formation of proto-democratic ideology accelerated due to the efforts of thinkers like John Locke .

The Reform Act 1832 widened electoral suffrage significantly and eliminated corrupted practices such as "rotten boroughs" and "pocket boroughs" which allowed a small group of powerful men to control a large number of seats in the Parliament.

This was already after the American and French revolutions, and republican ideals were becoming widespread in the western world.

England has had a large number of its own liberal thinkers such as the radical Richard Price and the more conservative Edmund Burke .

Further electoral reform was stalled for a while although promoted by movements such as Chartism (founded by the People's Charter of 1838 ).

Eventually reform continued with the Reform Acts of 1867 and 1884 .

Representation of the People Act 1918 granted almost universal male suffrage and limited female suffrage.

Representation of the People Act 1928 granted females and males equal voting rights.

In addition to what you list, the organizational structure, bookkeeping of the monarchs, and relative literacy levels (albeit not high levels absolutely) helped enable a democratic system to emerge.

Townhalls and church organizations allowed for some census and accountability to emerge.

The later monarchs kept relatively accurate and complete tax records which also helped a census and popular organizational structure emerge.

As law enforcement developed and shires, counties and the like saw division of municipal resources and enforcement, popular organization flourished as well.

In addition to the points already made, I would say that religion might have played a major role in how England turned out.

The English Civil War and the Glorious Revolution, both of which severely damaged the power of the monarch (the former completely destroying it for a while) were partly because of religion.

Structures like the English Parliament were already in place to take advantage of the weakening of the power of the monarch or the nobility for that matter.

A second reason I stress the above two events is that even as late as the mid-16th century (end of the reign of Henry the VIII), the monarch had an extreme amount of power and democracy really started emerging during the mid-17th century.

There was a medieval saying, " Stadluft macht Frei ."

(City air makes one free.)

One important aspect of England (and Greece and Rome before it) was the relative urbanization of its time.

The most "progressive" and democratic elements of society tend to concentrate in cities, whereas the most conservative and pro monarchic influences are generally found in the countryside.

A major test of England's progress toward democracy was the English Civil War of the 1640s, which at its core, pitted the new urban elite against the agrarian nobility.

(The former won.)

Cities like London and York (to a lesser extent, Liverpool and Bristol) housed manufacturing interests that tended to support democracy, or at least provide protection from the feudal lords.

In Poland and the Holy Roman Empire, there were fewer cities representing a smaller proportion of the population keeping the nobles in check.

It wasn't just "weakening of central government", but more specifically, weakening of the King/Queen, giving Parliament more power.

The Magna Carta was part of that.

Another notable event was the Glorious Revolution in 1688 when Parliament kicked the (Catholic) King James II out and replaced him with the Dutch.

This is another example of Parliament (i.e. the nobility) limiting the powers of the King.

Over the years, Parliament got more democratic as they allowed more people to vote, cf.

Reform Act

Even earlier than the Glorious Revolution, I recall reading the Hundred Years' War between the royal dynasties of England and France from 1337 to 1453 also played an important role in building the foundations of democracy in England.

The English kings were forced to finance the war effort (which was not universally popular) with the aid of Parliament and thus conceded authority to that early democratic institution.

England's ultimate defeat in the Hundred Years' War was partially responsible for the War of the Roses which split the English nobility into opposing factions and further weakened the Crown.

In contrast, the Hundred Years' War allowed the French monarchy to increase its central authority and taxation powers for the defense of the home soil.

The French kings were less dependent on national legislatures for raising money than England.

In fact, Charles VII established a standing army in 1445, which England did not have for another two hundred years.

Question: In England, the gradual weakening of the central government (starting with the Magna Carta), and the gradual rights given to nobility slowly pushed England to a democratic form of government. Yet in other countries with a weak central government (Poland, Holy Roman Empire), no democracy ever developed, and the nobility just upgraded their status to that of Kings.  What was unique in England that pushed democracy?

Besides Magna Carta and general decentralization, what specifically led to democratization in England?

Kings conceded authority to parliament as they had to finance wars. England was relatively urban and industrial areas helped to support the development of democracy. England had a large number of liberal thinkers who developed the democratic ideology.

The answer to this question will be subjective as there are a large number of contributing factors to the democratisation of England. England was relatively more urbanised than other nations and also had a number of liberal thinkers throughout its history, both of which contributed to a more democratic philosophy. The crown had also been weakened progressively over many centuries, particularly by the Glorious Revolution and the Hundred Years Way. Furthermore, the religious reality of the country may have played a significant part in how democracy evolved.

The role of monarchy and its progressive weakening played a big part in the progressive democratisation of England.

The drive towards further democratisation was also further guided by the Glorious Revolution and the Hundred-years War.

England moved faster towards democratisation because of its relative urbanisation compared to other nations.

England had a large number of liberal thinkers throughout its history that contributed towards its democratisation.

Religion might possibly have played a role in how England moved towards democracy.


There is some evidence that among the reasons for Alexander's army not wanting to march (and their subsequent widthdrawl) post their victory against King Porus was strong battalion of elephants (6000 as per one Plutarch's records) which Nandas could deploy.

See Plutarch for example.

Elephants were also an important factor in military conquests of the Mauryan empire against local and foreign rulers.

See here for example.

Both of the following accounts are from Polybius.

At the Battle of Tunis, Xanthippus used his elephants to charge the Roman line.

While some of the Romans avoided the elephants to charge the Carthaginian right and the formation held due to its depth, those at the front were trampled.

The Romans were later flanked by cavalry and the elephants also accounted for the bulk of the casualties from then on.

During the period before the Second Punic War when Carthage was consolidating power in Spain, Hannibal defeated a combined force of the Carpetani and other neighbouring tribes in a battle in which the majority of the killing was done by elephants.

However, the Carpetani had to cross a river to attack the Carthaginians, so it's quite possible that the battle could have ended the same way without the elephants.

Overall, I tend to concur with your estimate that the elephants usually proved to be more of a liability than an asset.

However, they did have some successes.

Two examples are: the Battle of Ipsus which was decided by a judicious deployment of an elephant reserve and the "Elephant Battle" in which Antiochus I routed the Galatians - I couldn't find a full-length description of it now on the web, but it's mentioned here .

An archaeology book somewhat unexpectedly has a very nice overview on elephant warfare in antiquity.

In the Battle of Heraclea (280 BC), Pyrrhus of Epirus used elephants decisively against the Romans.

The trick for him was to use them as reserve forces.

This is from the Wiki article: Unable to make any significant gains in action, Pyrrhus deployed his war elephants, held in reserve until now.

The Roman cavalry was threatening his flank too strongly.

Aghast at the sight of these strange and brooding creatures which none had seen before, the horses galloped away and threw the Roman legion into rout.

(The Romans subsequently called elephants "Lucanian oxen", after the location of this first encounter.).

Pyrrhus then launched his Thessalian cavalry among the disorganized legions, which completed the Romans' defeat.

The Romans fell back across the river and Pyrrhus held the field.

It's the first time Romans saw elephants though :)

The Battle of Ipsus (301 BC) is also worth mentioning.

Antigonus Monophthalmus and his son Demetrius Poliorcetes commanded a strong infantry army, but their 75 elephants were a bit short for Seleucus 400-480.

Again, from the Wiki: Demetrius found himself unable to return to the battlefield because of the deployment of 300 elephants in his path.

The ancient sources repeatedly emphasise the effect of elephants on horses, which are alarmed by the smell and noise of elephants and are loath to approach them.

Demetrius would not have been able to take his horses through the line of elephants, nor manoeuvre around such a large quantity of elephants.

This 'elephant manoeuvre' was the decisive moment in the battle, but it is not clear how it came about; Plutarch only says that "the [allied] elephants were thrown in his way".

If the elephants had indeed been held in reserve, then it might have been relatively straightforward to deploy them, but as discussed, it is not clear why so many elephants would have been held in reserve.

However, it is also possible that the deployment of the elephants was a piece of improvisation during the battle, though moving such a large number of elephants in such a coordinated manoeuvre in the middle of the battle would have been difficult.

Since he was the only allied commander with significant experience of handling elephants, it has been assumed that Seleucus was responsible for this manoeuvre.

BONUS LINK: List of battles involving war elephants (Wikipedia)

War elephants were constantly used in south Asia for over 2000 years.

The last use was by Thai and Vietnamese forces in the late 1800s.

Use of elephants for logistics continued into the 20th century.

Some rulers had thousands of war elephants.

Either elephants made important contributions to victory for thousands of years or every southern Asian ruler was a fool for thousands of years.

According to legend I think it is in Josephus Simon the last survivor of the five sons of Mattathias of the Maccabees falls in battle by thrusting a spear into the belly of war elephant on which he thought the king was riding, the elephant fell on him crushing him death.

Question: Does anyone know of any battles where war elephants played either a major or decisive part in the victory of whoever had them?  As far as I know, they were mostly used for the fear factor and were generally a liability rather than a benefit.

Is there any documentation regarding the use of war elephants in battles?

history.stackexchange.com/users/103/Sardathrion - against SE abuse

There is some evidence to support large battalions of elephants being deployed in battle and them being an important factor in military conquests. This seems to have been by Romans and in Asia.

There is historical evidence of war elephants being used across millenia in Roman, Ancient Greek and Asian civilisations.

There is documented evidence in Ancient Greek history of war elephants being used in battle.

There is documented evidence of war elephants being used in the Punic Wars.

War elephants have been used for millenia by many civilisations across Asia.


First of all, I don't really see why you think that USSR didn't get Lvov according to the pact.

It is true that Germans captured Lvov before going back and letting Russians in (according to a statement by somebody who was in Lvov at that time, I didn't bother looking up online sources on that) but that appeared to be simply a misunderstanding.

The German and Russian troops even held a joint parade in Lvov, no sign of disagreements.

Stalin's actions in 1939 and 1940 were indeed targeted at restoring the territory of USSR to the extents of the Russian Empire: invasion of Poland, then Winter War against Finland in which USSR captured Karelia (probably less than originally intended, all of Finland used to be Russian province), finally recapturing of Bessarabia and the Baltic states.

All of these territories used to belong to the Russian Empire and were given away in the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk.

So getting them back was well-received in the population.

But I wouldn't go as far as to claiming that Stalin wanted to revive the Russian Empire - monarchistic ideas in the USSR

were a hard sell.

The Soviet regime was always expansionist, with the stated goal of a world-wide revolution.

It was a good opportunity to get territories back that were "rightfully theirs", so they did it.

After World War II USSR expanded its control to a large part of Europe - these countries never belonged to the Russian Empire but

given that they already were occupied it would have been stupid to simply give them up.

There is nothing special about borders of former Russian Empire when considering Soviet expansion.

There is an official USSR diplomatic note to Germany (Molotov to Schulenberg on 25 November 1940).

It is a conditional agreement of USSR to join Axis.

The conditions were to extend USSR sphere of influence to: Bulgaria, Bosfor, Dardanelles, and south of Batumi and Baku towards Gulf of Persia (source: Mark Solonin "25 June" p. 227, citing the Russian Presidential Archive set 3/64, doc 675 p. 108).

These territories were obviously not in the former Russian Empire.

Molotov sent a note acting on Stalin's orders.

"Did Stalin want..." What person X wanted or what person Y was thinking is not a good subject of historical research; our motives and desires are mysterious even to our close ones, so how could historians seventy years later know better?

What we know is that USSR did not hide from Germany their interest in expanding to these territories, and I think this is what your question is about, right?

Also, in 1945, Stalin negotiated with Allies to officially take a part of German Prussia (Koenigsberg, now Kaliningrad)

- it was never a part of a former Russian Empire.

(Unofficially, Stalin had much control over East Germany, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Bulgaria, etc.

These were never parts of a former Russian Empire.)

The Soviet Union did invade Poland in February 1919 – March 1921 with the war aims of reconquest and spread of Communism -- which as comments have pointed out was the main reason (read: excuse) for Soviet expansion.

The Soviet union's wars and assimilations of the kahnates during Lenin set a policy of conquest via politics and military might.

Stalin was following and using Lenin to justify his own cult.

So, I would yes that Stalin wanted indeed to revive the Russian Empire and expend it to cover the Earth.

Source :

Setting the East Ablaze: Lenin's Dream of an Empire in Asia by Peter Hopkirk, God's Playground A History of Poland: Volume II: 1795 to the Present: 1795 to the Present Vol 2 by Norman Davies and White Eagle, Red Star:

The Polish-Soviet War 1919-20 by Norman Davies

history.stackexchange.com/users/103/Sardathrion - against SE abuse

Lev, you apparently hold the assumption that post-WWII borders were "defined" by Molotov-Ribbentrot pact.

USSR had to claim at least that territory, but when Germany became a war loser any winning coutry could take a piece of a losing country or their ally.

How exactly it happened, can be read in Churchill WWII autobiography, and in protocols of Yalta and Potsdam conferences.

Lvov transfer,I beleive, was result of one-to-one talk between Churshill and Stalin account of which I read in Churchill autobuigrahy.

Churshill and Stalin, on one-to-one, argeed to move poland to the west, giving piece of German territory to Poland (with subsequent transfer of German population), plus giving piece of Poland territory to Russia.

The talk took only two minutes, both parties having no disagreements, and not a word was exchanged Churchill describe this talk in details.

Churchill writes (I write from memory): "I took a piece of paper and made a sketch of boundaries of Poland and Gernany.

Stalin watched me.

Then I draw a line on German territory to the west of Poland.

Then I draw another line to the west of Russian-Polish territory.

I showed this to Stalin.

Stalin nodded.

" That was it.

(Churchill draw line along large rivers that made his sket precise, actually.

I forget river names).

Boundaries and spheres of influences followed from the positions taken by the troops on the ground, and then agreements between CHurchill and Stalin.

This is obvious from protocols of Yalta and Potsdam conferences.

Stalin want "secure" borders for Russia.

To the south, that meant parts of Turkey, at least the "Straits," and part of the Balkans, say Bulgaria to secure them, plus parts of Persia, all the way to the Persian Gulf, according to sources such as the Molotov-Schulenburg talks , quoted in sources like William L. Shirer's "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich.

" These were far beyond Russian imperialist borders.

To offset this, Stalin was willing to accept "less" in the west than the Russian borders.

He was willing to "horse trade" parts of Poland, e.g. Warsaw, and even LIthuania held by the Russian Czars.

What he wanted most was the Pripet Marshes, and the forest along and in front of them, for defense.

Question: On one hand, it seems so because the  Molotov-Ribbentrop pact  defined the border between the two spheres of influence to be the border of the Russian Empire before WWI. On the other hand, the USSR ended up annexing more than was agreed in the pact, e.g., Lvov (a.k.a. Lviv, Lemberg), which had been Austrian before WWI.  Do we know if it was Stalin's intent to restore the Russian Empire's borders, or maybe just a trick to foil Germany?

Did Stalin want to restore the Russian Empire's borders?

Stalin's actions in 1939 and 1940 were intended to re-establish the Russian Empire.

It is largely agreed that Stalin wanted to reestablish the Russian Empire's pre-war borders but that he also wanted to extend these significantly.


First of all, aircraft carriers are expensive .

Russia (compared to USA) was never resource-rich enough to be able to afford the expense; neither was USSR.

Second of all, Russia (or rather USSR) had no motivation.

USA's main geopolitical goal is to safeguard seabourne trade routes; and to prevent strong competitors from arising and commanding great sets of resources ala Japan's goal in WW2.

Contrast that with Russia/USSR, which is dependent economically on seabourne trade to an enormously smaller extent; and whose main geopolitical concerns are right there on a landmass - protecting core russia by building a periphery barrier and keeping the populace under control.

A carrier is of pretty much no help in that goal.

(as discussed in the comments - while Russia has a lot of maritime border, they aren't important for most part.

Nobody'll invade - or trade - through Arctic.

And since WWII, Japan hasn't been a credible geopolitical threat on the Pacific coast).

The aircraft carrier is an offensive weapon; it is not very useful to protect one's own territory-- and the USSR was never planning an aggressive war.

The USSR's main military preparations were for a defensive war in Europe similar to the Great Patriotic War during WWII and for nuclear deterrence so to avoid a nuclear strike from the United States.

Even in the case of war with the US, the USSR planned a land attack on the European NATO members with a massive tank rush.

The US, on the other hand, permanently conducts aggressive wars for resources against small and medium-sized countries overseas.

The current military doctrine even calls for the ability to conduct two wars in two different countries at the same time.

Besides that, the best means to quickly defeat a small country is to put a carrier near its borders and to make a massive bomb strike.

Transporting land weapons such as tanks on the other hand is expensive and takes much time.

Russia is not a true naval power.

It has only a handful of ports: St. Petersburg, Vladlivostok, Archangelsk, and Sevastopol (and all

but the last are icebound for several months of the year).

Its naval needs are primarily defensive, meaning that it can use land-based aircraft, rather than aircraft carriers for this purpose.

Of course it needs a surface fleet and submarines to defend these approaches.

The other answers are all correct and worth an upvote.

Money, land-bound, defensive mentality were factors.

However, I will add one key element the others have not mentioned, which is that it was a deliberate part of their strategy.

Soviet military planners considered the United States to be a threat to their polity and they deliberately made an "anti-USA" strategy, which dictated designing weapons and methods which were specifically for countering US technology.

In naval warfare, this meant that they deliberately decided to put all their money into submarines.

The hope was that in a "sub vs carrier" war, the subs would win.

By focusing completely on subs, they were hoping they could surpass us in this one key technology which would trump our other advantages.

The Soviet Union believed in spreading Communism (an ideology) through giving communist revolutionaries weapons such as guns, tanks, and planes.

The USA believed in projecting military power to guard its economic interests, which included containing the spread of communism ( domino theory ).

Sometimes the US even gave weapons to bad people (Saddam Hussein, the Taliban of Afghanistan, etc.) to counter the spread of communism or guard its economic interests.

The US has good reason to believe that it cannot rely on many of its fickle "allies."

Therefore the US needs another method of projecting military power.

That is where the carriers come in.

They are much more reliable than dictators etc.

However carriers are also much more vulnerable .

Nuclear Powered Icebreakers were more important to the Soviet Union (and now Russia) because no other ships (neither aircraft carriers nor tankers) can survive the ice of the Arctic Ocean, which is where much of Russia's oil resources are located.

The Soviet Union did build aircraft carriers, but on a much more limited scale than the USA.

Communism prevented the Soviet Union from trading as much as the US, since it believed in centralized economies.

Centralized planning also allowed convoys of ships to have military escorts such as those to Cuba.

With the end of the Cold War, Russia has little need for naval power and Ukraine (former USSR) recently sold a partially completed Soviet aircraft carrier to China .

It should also be noted that the the most humiliating defeat in America's recent history was the attack on Pearl Harbor, which was conducted from Japanese aircraft carriers.

This is a very interesting question.

To answer it I had to see if you are correct

, that indeed Russia/USSR did not have a larger number of aircraft carriers.

Based on this article, Russian Aircraft Carriers Sold Journal:

American metal market, Date:

11/16/1994, Vol: 102(222): 11 - 11 you are correct.

Russia did not have a large number of aircraft carriers.

A South Korean company bought a decade ago two Russian aircraft carriers for scrap metal: the Minsk and Novorossiisk .

Based on the same article I have to conclude that the limited number of aircraft carriers is due to the fact that Russia believes the cold war has ended: The two 37,000-ton aircraftcarriers, built in 1979 and 1984, were the mainstay of the Soviet Union's Far East Naval Fleet, but with the end of the Cold War, Russia decided to decommission them.

Question: The United States has 11 aircraft carriers in total. Russia has only one. This is reflective of the past, in which we saw that the USSR also didn't put much importance on constructing aircraft carriers and putting them into operation.  Why hasn't Russia bothered to keep a larger inventory of aircraft carriers? Why hasn't it wanted to project its power through carriers? Why has the United States wanted to project its power through carriers?  What is the main point of difference in these two strategies?

Why hasn't Russia maintained significant numbers of aircraft carriers?

Aircraft carriers are expensive and Russia has never had the resources. It is also not a naval power. It's naval needs are primarily defensive and has generally put into resources into countering US technology.

There are many reasons why Russia hasn't maintained a fleet of aircraft carriers, but a significant one would be expense. Russia has maintained a largely defensive mentality over the years and an aircraft carrier is a largely offensive asset. Furthermore, given the nature of its geography, Russia has never intended to maintain a large standing navy.

Aircraft carriers are expensive and have not been deemed worth the cost.

Russie has never had motivations to maintain a strong navy.

Russia has a much more defensive mentality and an aircraft carrier is a more offensive weapon.


There are not many situations of annexation or unification in recent history, and most of those are accompanied by warfare or guerrilla violence.

So this is a relatively unusual situation.

Given the narrow question you asked, the most obvious answer is German unification .

The DDR/GDR basically just dissolved and those East German Lander were incorporated into the BRD/FRG under the Basic Law.

It didn't take troops invading, so I don't know if you mean it.

It was also certainly popular on both sides (at least in the sense of favoring Einheit).

One could also pose the United Arab Republic as an answer, though maybe not one you were looking for.

Syria offered to join Egypt in a fit of pro-Nasser pan-Arabism, but also to ward off perceived Communist influence over their government.

The hybrid state of two noncontiguous portions only lasted three and a half years until Syria seceded.

Nasser talked about pan-Arabism, but didn't make any moves to bully or to woo Syria.

The parallel to Crimea is not terribly strong, but it was an annexation (Syria wanted full union, not a federal union) and it did not come from or cause violence.

There are examples of territories annexed to the United States with varying degrees of violence or pacificism, such as the gift of the Northwest Territory by the British (an unexpected windfall), the Louisiana Purchase, Texas Annexation, Oregon Territory from Britain, Mexican Cession & Gadsden Purchase, purchase of Alaska from Imperial Russia, controversial annexation of Hawaii, and so on.

I'm not sure the extent to which you'd consider a purchase of territory to fit your criteria, but many of them were done more or less peacefully, except to the extent that the locals suffered violence from the new government.

The Mexican Cession came from war, but the Texas Annexation was itself peaceful - excluding the war for independence that Texas had just waged (with a number of border-crossing Americans pushing for the fight).

You could also have examples of territories returned to former sovereigns who lost it from warfare, negotiation, or colonial tribute.

This would include the return of Hong Kong from the UK and Macau from Portugal to China, the return of borderland territories from Russia to China, the return of the Sinai to Egypt by Israel, and so forth.

I'm not sure if this is what you're looking for, but there are more of these examples.

These were all peaceful, but often the previous disposition had been either via warfare or through colonial threats.

There are some other Russian examples mildly parallel to the Crimea.

Russia had troops in South Ossetia as observers since 2004 and issued Russian passports to many South Ossetians and Abkhazians during the 2000s.

In 2008, this was cited as a basis for Russian troops moving into Abkhazia and strenghtening their position in South Ossetia, though neither has yet been annexed and of course there was a relatively brief period of warfare.

The main comparison is that it was a matter of Russia slicing off territory from its neighbors.

Russia did something similar with Transnistria, a breakaway portion of Moldova that has Russian troops and a leadership with an essentially Soviet-era outlook.

But Russia has not made real moves to annex Transnistria, which is both landlocked and noncontiguous with Russia, so would be an exclave.

It is also not ethnically Russian.

You can find other examples where annexation led to non-state violence (terrorism or civil war) like Israel and Jerusalem or Morocco and Western Sahara.

One could get into little nitpicking fights about Israel's annexation of the Golan Heights and whether to count its annexation (including Shebaa Farms, claimed by Lebanon) as resulting in violence or as subsumed in the larger regional conflict.

None of these annexations have been accepted by an international consensus of states, as with Crimea.

Similar examples are the Anschluss of Austria; the annexation of Sudetenland (but there was an explicit agreement of France and Great Britian and there had been fighting in previous attempts); and the establishment of the Protectorate_of_Bohemia_and_Moravia .

Later these turned out to not be so bloodless, but initially it was achieved without much loss of lives.

No one thinks Adolf Hitler is a nice guy due to this, either.

The Romans took over a few provinces, especially in the East, by being named heir by the last king. Pergamum and Bythinia, at the minimum.

The decolonialisation of Singapore and (now)

East Malaysia and their subsequent annexation to Malaya in 1963 occurred with no military actions taking place.

Granted, their neighbours (namely Philippines and Indonesia) were not happy about this and organised a number of terrorist attacks and low-level skirmishes soon afterwards, but the territories themselves were annexed peacefully and there was no significant local resistance to the annexation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indonesia%E2%80%93Malaysia_confrontation

There are several such examples in Russian/Soviet history: Annexation of three Baltic states (1940) Annexation of Bessarabia and Bukovina (1940) from Roumania.

Like in Crimea, none of them gave any armed resistance.

Occupation of the Western Ukraine and Belorussia in 1939 by the Soviet militaryalso did not meet with much armed resistance.

Would you consider the partitions of Poland by the Russian Empire, Prussia, and Austria in the 18th century?

Question: I'm not trying to start a debate about if Russia's recent actions in the Crimea are legal or whether the majority of the population agrees with what has happened.  However, the action was successful partially because the Russian Troops did not use deadly force.  Are there other examples of similar successes due not using deadly force?  Please don't cite situations where in the end they ended in open warfare.

Have there been other examples of reunification/annexation, such as in the Crimea, that succeeded without using deadly force?

There are a few other Russian examples that are similar like annexation of three Baltic states in 1940. There are also some examples of territories annexed to the United States. German unification would be another example.

There is disagreement as to how many historical examples fit the description of non-violent annexations, since many examples may have included guerrilla warfare at a minimum. However, there were many unresisted annexations carried out by Soviet Russia and indeed the unification of some US states may fall under this definition. Other examples could include the unification of Germany or the creation of the United Arab Republic.

There are number of examples of this, mostly including the occupation of regions by Soviet Russia, which met with little resistance.

The annexation of some American states could be given as examples of non-violent annexation.

The reunification of Germany is a fairly recent example of non-violent reunification.

Some examples of non-violent annexation include the annexation of the Sudetenland by Austria or the creation of the United Arab Republic.

There are very few examples of this happening as most annexations are normally accompanied by some form of guerrilla warfare at a minimum.


Bernard of Italy , illegitimate son of Pepin of Italy (himself a legitimate son of Charlemagne), became king of the Lombards in 810.

Edward the Martyr , briefly king of England from 975 to 978, was probably illegitimate; his father Edgar I acknowledged his younger son Æthelred as the only rightful heir

(but Edgar's opinion lost most of its strength when he died).

Vladimir

the Great became "Knyaz" of Kiev in 978, the title deriving from a Proto-Germanic word meaning "king".

He was a natural son of Sviatoslav I, a previous ruler of the Kiev Rus'.

João

I of Portugal was an illegitimate son of a previous king (Peter I) and conquered the throne after a civil war triggered by a lack of legitimate male heir.

Atahualpa was "illegitimate" son of Huayna Capac and still became Sapa Inca, roughly translated as "Emperor".

The concept of illegitimacy is not the same as in contemporary Europe; the Inca had a primary wife (formally said to be his "sister"), whose children were heirs, and many secondary wives, who could be chosen for political reasons (hence not exactly "concubines" dedicated to the ruler's concupiscence).

Atahualpa was son of one such secondary wife.

Paul

I of Russia was most probably the son of Sergei Saltykov, and not of Peter III, husband of his mother Catherine (who became Catherine II).

Paul succeeded Catherine (and was murdered 5 years later).

According to the Catholics of the time, Elizabeth I was illegitimate, since the Catholic church never recognised the marriage of Henry VIII to Anne Boleyn.

Not that Elizabeth was ever king ;-)

Even the Protestant parliament of England retroactively declared her illegitimate, with no place in the succession, when they annulled the same marriage (in 1536?).

Naturally this inconvenience was ignored when the Tudors ran out of other heirs: Edward VI and Mary I both died, and none of Henry VIII's other "official" children survived to adulthood (including his acknowledged bastard Henry Fitzroy).

Cleopatra's bastard with Julius Caesar, Caesarion, ruled jointly with his mother as the last kings of the Ptolemaic dynasty of Egypt.

After Caesar's assassination, Cleopatra went on to acquire a set of bastard twins from Mark Antony.

Had they won their bid for power against Octavian, the male twin Alexander Helios would have been on track to succeed as the next Roman Emperor, but alas that story ended in tragedy.

Tancred of Lecce was King of Sicily.

Denmark and Norway had plenty.

Denmark had six bastard kings in a row, five of which were fathered by Sweyn II :

Harald Hen (d. 1080) Canute

the Saint (d. 1086) Oluf Hunger (d. 1095)

Eric Evergood (d. 1103) Niels (d. 1134)

Niels was followed by Erik Emune, bastard child of Eric Evergood.

Later, his bastard son Sweyn Grathe would also take the crown.

After this, there were no more bastard kings of Denmark.

The Norwegians possibly had eight bastard sons in a row (one claimed to have been such, but was not recognised), see Wikipedia .

By contrast, Sweden has had only one known bastard king, Emund the old.

Manfred, Prince of Taranto, regent of Sicily 1254-1258, King of Sicily 1258-1266, was an illegitimate son of Emperor Frederick II.

Enzio, an illegitimate half brother of Manfred, married the heiress of part of Sardinia and was appointed King of Sardinia by Emperor Frederick II.

In Medieval Wales illegitimate sons who were acknowledged by their fathers had an equal right to inherit as legitimate sons.

The mothers of many Welsh kings are not known and When they are known it is often not known if they were the wives or mistresses of their fathers.

Nobody knows the proportion of legitimate and illegitimate sons among the Welsh kings.

And similarly there was a high proportion of illegitimate birth among the medieval Irish kings.

Since there were more kingdoms in medieval Ireland than in all the reset of Europe, it is possible that most medieval European kings were bastards.

King Alfonso V (1396-1458) of Aragon etc.

Left Aragon and Sicily to his legitimate brother King John II of Aragon, Sicily, etc., and his other kingdom of Sicily to his illegitimate son Ferdinand

I (1423-1494)

And I have a longer list in my anser to this question: Why couldn't bastards inherit titles?

Question: William the Conqueror was a bastard and I have heard him being referred to as William the Bastard by a Beefeater on a tour in the Tower of London.   Are there any other examples of bastards becoming kings in history? I'd be especially interested if any  bastards from common bloodlines ever became kings.

Which bastards became kings?

There are many examples of bastards becoming kings, including Bernard of Italy, many in Denmark and Norway, and potentially the majority of medieval European kings.

There were many, many kings throughout European history that were bastards. It's possible in fact, that most medieval European kings were.