"Would you rather be the BEST of a LOSING team or the WORSE of a WINNING team?"

the worst of a winning team. this is a very standard question that gets asked a lot in different ways. why would you want to captain a sinking ship?

but cant you say that if you have leadership skills..you can turn around the losing team into a winning team. the answer would be different for a restructuring interview. i dont think there is a cookie-cutter right answer to that, but just hv to back it up with ur reasoning.

I think this is one of those questions that don't have a right or wrong answer, but depend entirely on your reasoning (I think there's a few variations, too). Personally, I would say it depends what kind of team you're on - if your team is winning but you suck so much you're not contributing anything, that's pointless - whereas if your team is losing, but in a way that you could put in your worth and turn it around, I'd go for that.

lolz... this brings back memories of getting asked faggoty questions like this all through the IB recruiting process. good luck...

best of losing team.

interviewers want to see: 1. affinity to taking on challenges 2. leadership 3. confidence 4. passion

you incorporate those 4 things into your answer - should be pretty cookie cutter. in my opinion, restructuring would def want you to answer it this way.

reality... worst of winning team. 1. comp is better 2. better exit ops even if your team cant vouch for you as much

I think a losing team is a team that holds the most hope. You’re already at the bottom of the ladder, and the only way to go is up. The team can be developed and brought up, it doesn’t have to remain at the bottom. The best player has the opportunity to lead the team and give encouragements. And I think that’s really exciting to be able lend your talent and your knowledge for your team. Giving your all to the sport you’re involved in sets examples and standards for others to follow. You’re a leader rather an follower, therefore, you’re able to forge a deeper friendship with your teammates and enable them to succeed.

you forget that being the bottom-licker is degrading and demoralizing. it takes a true sunshine-face (fag) to be able to always see the silver lining. however i do agree with preferring the losing team - assuming, of course, that they're not complete morons. i personally love the challenge and am far more interested in the potential for positive change and the effectiveness of my contributions to the whole than to be the trailing n00b nobody listens to because he has nothing to contribute.

When you are the worst of a winning team, you still have the potential to learn. It should even be what you expect when you join if you don't have experience. You can work on developing yourself, learning from and be inspired by your colleagues.

When someone says "best on a losing team" I associate it with greasy seniors who hire incompetent idiots who still try hard, just to be able to feed their ego on a daily basis.

From the perspective of an interviewer, I suspect the former would be the best answer for analytical roles and pretty much everything except for roles that heavily depend on leadership and motivation - i.e. only if you're hired for your man-bull personality should you say that you're confident you can lead the poor performers to victory.

(don't let that prejudice you from forming your own answer in an interview!)

If you have the talent and drive to take a losing team to a winning team. Wouldn't you probably be able to move up the ranks of the winning team?