Job Interview for IT Pro: Guide for HR Managers(hrtechnology.info)
hrtechnology.info
Job Interview for IT Pro: Guide for HR Managers
http://hrtechnology.info/blog/2015/11/16/job-interview-for-it-pro/
50 comments
The "hobby" question got a lot easier after having kids - my hobbies are what my kids are interested in this year. If that turns them off in any way, I don't want to work there.
I have all daughters, and I've recently started a new hobby, painting.
I've been doing quite well. I e been watching Bob Ross, and started painting things I find o. Reddit...
The goal is to be able to paint butterflies and unicorns, but I'm currently on trees and mountains and clouds..
I've been doing quite well. I e been watching Bob Ross, and started painting things I find o. Reddit...
The goal is to be able to paint butterflies and unicorns, but I'm currently on trees and mountains and clouds..
For that exact reason, I am incredibly thankful my kid's interests are currently sufficiently geeky. Terrified for when those interests are dumped in favor of appeasing boys.
My god, the summary even says "there is a catch, though". If you're asking interview questions with a 'catch', you're doing it wrong. If you're asking those questions after getting them from a question list published online for every candidate to read, you're doing it hopelessly wrong.
But it was a hopeless question either way. The 'catch' bit just means the author should have known it was a terrible question. I have trouble imagining the candidate who wouldn't try to guess which hobby is most interview-friendly and talk exclusively about that.
But it was a hopeless question either way. The 'catch' bit just means the author should have known it was a terrible question. I have trouble imagining the candidate who wouldn't try to guess which hobby is most interview-friendly and talk exclusively about that.
Lying about these things is trivial to see through. One or two follow up questions and now the candidate is a likely liar. I'm definitely biased against liars.
So that's where we're at now? "Don't lie; we'll find out your real hobby is needlepoint"
"One of my favorite hobbies is piano"
"Oh yeah? What's your favorite scale?"
"Uh what?"
"Can you tell me your favorite major triad?"
"..."
interviewer assumes person is lying because their level of enthusiasm and knowledge doesn't match up to their expectations of what a "true piano hobbyist is" when really person just likes to play chopsticks on the piano or lookup yt videos on how to play pop songs
"Oh yeah? What's your favorite scale?"
"Uh what?"
"Can you tell me your favorite major triad?"
"..."
interviewer assumes person is lying because their level of enthusiasm and knowledge doesn't match up to their expectations of what a "true piano hobbyist is" when really person just likes to play chopsticks on the piano or lookup yt videos on how to play pop songs
"I like to play my favorite songs, I don't really know any music theory."
But honestly, there is an expectation of some level of competency/knowledge when trying to "claim" a hobby, because people consider a hobby as something you involve yourself in at more than a surface level.
Would you call yourself a polyglot because you know how to say "I love you." in eight different languages? Would you expect others to consider you multilingual? Probably not... There is some floor level of expectation before people would say you can "speak" a language and would consider you multilingual and a single phrase doesn't cut it for most people.
If someone tells me that they like to play a musical instrument - I'd first gauge their level of ability "What songs do you like to play?" followed by their knowledge of music theory "Could you show me a `Gm sus4 7` chord in the second inversion?" or a more basic "What are the 12 notes in Standard Western notation?"
But honestly, there is an expectation of some level of competency/knowledge when trying to "claim" a hobby, because people consider a hobby as something you involve yourself in at more than a surface level.
Would you call yourself a polyglot because you know how to say "I love you." in eight different languages? Would you expect others to consider you multilingual? Probably not... There is some floor level of expectation before people would say you can "speak" a language and would consider you multilingual and a single phrase doesn't cut it for most people.
If someone tells me that they like to play a musical instrument - I'd first gauge their level of ability "What songs do you like to play?" followed by their knowledge of music theory "Could you show me a `Gm sus4 7` chord in the second inversion?" or a more basic "What are the 12 notes in Standard Western notation?"
> But honestly, there is an expectation of some level of competency/knowledge when trying to "claim" a hobby, because people consider a hobby as something you involve yourself in at more than a surface level.
No. In fact, the very definition of a hobby refutes this. A hobby is purely anything you have taken interest in for mere pleasure or to fill leisure time. Hobby's synonyms are pastime, leisurely activity, leisurely pursuit, etc. There should be no expectation of mastery.
Now if I said I am a piano practitioner, I would assume some knowledge.
> If someone tells me that they like to play a musical instrument - I'd first gauge [...]
And this list of criteria you gauge will vary from person to person, and interviewer to interviewer, which is exactly why approving/rejecting candidates based on their hobbies is unreliable at best.
By the way, your listed criteria of what someone being a musician is would exclude Jimi Hendrix, Stevie Ray Vaughan, Paul McCartney, Kurt Vile, Tony Williams, Danny Elfman, Eric Clapton and Tom Morello, just to name a few.
No. In fact, the very definition of a hobby refutes this. A hobby is purely anything you have taken interest in for mere pleasure or to fill leisure time. Hobby's synonyms are pastime, leisurely activity, leisurely pursuit, etc. There should be no expectation of mastery.
Now if I said I am a piano practitioner, I would assume some knowledge.
> If someone tells me that they like to play a musical instrument - I'd first gauge [...]
And this list of criteria you gauge will vary from person to person, and interviewer to interviewer, which is exactly why approving/rejecting candidates based on their hobbies is unreliable at best.
By the way, your listed criteria of what someone being a musician is would exclude Jimi Hendrix, Stevie Ray Vaughan, Paul McCartney, Kurt Vile, Tony Williams, Danny Elfman, Eric Clapton and Tom Morello, just to name a few.
>In fact, the very definition of a hobby refutes this
I don't care much for definitions - because dictionaries are often years or decades behind how words are literally used.
In this case it's a matter of breaking expectation - and not because the statement is "wrong". The statement would be correct but goes against what people are expecting when they ask such a question.
If someone were to tell you "My hobby is drawing." what do you first imagine? Perhaps not hyper realistic graphite drawings but you're probably imagining something with at least a mediocre level of talent. Decent proportions, an understanding of depth, at least the basics! How surprised would you be if they showed you a bunch of crudely drawn stick figures that look like a three year old drew them? Would you think they were pulling a joke on you?
If someone says "I'm a programmer" would it break your expectations to find out that they can only write `=SUM(A2:B2)` into an Excel spreadsheet? How many people do you think would disagree that they are "a programmer" if that is the extent of their programming talent? Do you think that would be a majority of people or a minority of people? If someone put on their resume that they had 8 years of programming experience and failed to mention that it was only with Excel functions would you count that against them when hiring them? Would you consider it manipulative or shady? It's the equivalent of saying "I handle financial transactions for a multi-billion dollar company." when you're a cashier at McDonalds. Factually correct, but you better only be saying it in jest or you would be considered a manipulative asshole.
By the way, my listed criteria did not exclude them. The first judgement is one of ability - all of them would pass as musicians by that alone.
I don't care much for definitions - because dictionaries are often years or decades behind how words are literally used.
In this case it's a matter of breaking expectation - and not because the statement is "wrong". The statement would be correct but goes against what people are expecting when they ask such a question.
If someone were to tell you "My hobby is drawing." what do you first imagine? Perhaps not hyper realistic graphite drawings but you're probably imagining something with at least a mediocre level of talent. Decent proportions, an understanding of depth, at least the basics! How surprised would you be if they showed you a bunch of crudely drawn stick figures that look like a three year old drew them? Would you think they were pulling a joke on you?
If someone says "I'm a programmer" would it break your expectations to find out that they can only write `=SUM(A2:B2)` into an Excel spreadsheet? How many people do you think would disagree that they are "a programmer" if that is the extent of their programming talent? Do you think that would be a majority of people or a minority of people? If someone put on their resume that they had 8 years of programming experience and failed to mention that it was only with Excel functions would you count that against them when hiring them? Would you consider it manipulative or shady? It's the equivalent of saying "I handle financial transactions for a multi-billion dollar company." when you're a cashier at McDonalds. Factually correct, but you better only be saying it in jest or you would be considered a manipulative asshole.
By the way, my listed criteria did not exclude them. The first judgement is one of ability - all of them would pass as musicians by that alone.
> I don't care much for definitions - because dictionaries are often years or decades behind how words are literally used.
I don't care that you don't care for definitions. Words have meaning, whether you care about them or not.
The whole premise of your anecdotes are based upon your experience and the way your brain operates. That's the definition of bias. That's the reason why dismissing someone based upon your perceived lack of mastery of their hobby, something by definition is something someone does just for fun, is horrible for any sort of hiring needs or purposes.
Telling me "I do this as a hobby" and "I am this" are two completely different statements.
I don't care that you don't care for definitions. Words have meaning, whether you care about them or not.
The whole premise of your anecdotes are based upon your experience and the way your brain operates. That's the definition of bias. That's the reason why dismissing someone based upon your perceived lack of mastery of their hobby, something by definition is something someone does just for fun, is horrible for any sort of hiring needs or purposes.
Telling me "I do this as a hobby" and "I am this" are two completely different statements.
>I don't care that you don't care for definitions. Words have meaning, whether you care about them or not.
Words literally have definitions that change over time, in context, from different groups of people, in different regions, and literally sometimes don't literally mean what is literally written in a dictionary. Pointing to a dictionary and saying "This is what this word means" is completely ignoring how communication works unless you're trying to get two people to agree upon a definition of a word.
The only good a dictionary is for is saying "This is the definition of the word I am using." Neat. I'll stick with the way everyone around me uses the word, dictionary be damned.
>Telling me "I do this as a hobby" and "I am this" are two completely different statements.
The implications of the statement matters.
>It's the equivalent of saying "I handle financial transactions for a multi-billion dollar company." when you're a cashier at McDonalds.
Words literally have definitions that change over time, in context, from different groups of people, in different regions, and literally sometimes don't literally mean what is literally written in a dictionary. Pointing to a dictionary and saying "This is what this word means" is completely ignoring how communication works unless you're trying to get two people to agree upon a definition of a word.
The only good a dictionary is for is saying "This is the definition of the word I am using." Neat. I'll stick with the way everyone around me uses the word, dictionary be damned.
>Telling me "I do this as a hobby" and "I am this" are two completely different statements.
The implications of the statement matters.
>It's the equivalent of saying "I handle financial transactions for a multi-billion dollar company." when you're a cashier at McDonalds.
That is such a weird expectation to have.
I play the Beethoven Sonata's I play well. I'd have to answer with dunno to all those questions. My piano teacher did have a professional jazz pianist as a student, because he wanted to learn some more traditional techniques.
Yesterday I went to a class of a famous Brazilian percussionist. When I asked him about whether there is a dictionary of the rhythms, so I can at least look them up, he said, dunno, if you want to learn get close to people that know, learn and practice.
But as the GP said, if I knew that was the expectation I would prepare for it and try to control the interview.
All the people I interviewed with I was still in the university did have top grades, but were otherwise terrible engineers. You're basically looking for those people.
I play the Beethoven Sonata's I play well. I'd have to answer with dunno to all those questions. My piano teacher did have a professional jazz pianist as a student, because he wanted to learn some more traditional techniques.
Yesterday I went to a class of a famous Brazilian percussionist. When I asked him about whether there is a dictionary of the rhythms, so I can at least look them up, he said, dunno, if you want to learn get close to people that know, learn and practice.
But as the GP said, if I knew that was the expectation I would prepare for it and try to control the interview.
All the people I interviewed with I was still in the university did have top grades, but were otherwise terrible engineers. You're basically looking for those people.
The third person who failed to notice I put ability before knowledge. Also the second person to bring up someone with talent as an example when the original argument is that talent shouldn't matter, and I'm saying there is an expectation that it does. (Unless they say they are a beginner)
If that famous Brazilian percussionist was instead a shitty percussionist with no rhythm - would he still be famous? Would he even be considered a percussionist by other people?
I have a feeling I'm either making my argument poorly or people are trying to read between the lines and missing my point.
If that famous Brazilian percussionist was instead a shitty percussionist with no rhythm - would he still be famous? Would he even be considered a percussionist by other people?
I have a feeling I'm either making my argument poorly or people are trying to read between the lines and missing my point.
You are not hiring musician here. You are hiring programmer who was suddenly forced to come up with hobby and defend his proefficiency of that hobby for mysterious reason. Against person you knows next to nothing about their hobby.
Also, plenty of people are shitty at their pastimes.
Also, plenty of people are shitty at their pastimes.
>You are hiring programmer
Am I hiring:
>Also, plenty of people are shitty at their pastimes.
I'm not arguing against that. My argument is (a) vs (b).
Am I hiring:
(a) A programmer
(b) Someone who considers themselves a programmer
>Also, plenty of people are shitty at their pastimes.
I'm not arguing against that. My argument is (a) vs (b).
You must not gig with too many professional singer songwriters...
I'm doing that tonight, and I dunno if I've met more that a couple who know what sus chord does. And I'm talking about folks who make their living from music.
I'm doing that tonight, and I dunno if I've met more that a couple who know what sus chord does. And I'm talking about folks who make their living from music.
Which is why ability is judged before knowledge. If you play in the New York Philharmonic I couldn't give a damn if you even know what the definition of a chord is.
Also if you're a professional, by definition, you're not a hobbyist.
Also if you're a professional, by definition, you're not a hobbyist.
Even when you hobby is watching porn?
Eh? Who said 'lying'?
I rock climb, listen to jam bands, and play video games. They're all very real hobbies I could pass any reasonable test on, in the bizarre event that someone considered it appropriate or worthwhile to "test me" on my own hobbies.
But I certainly don't think all three of those hobbies are interchangeable in an interview setting. The article talks about the question having a 'catch', so apparently the author agrees that they weren't asking the question in good faith - there were specific hobbies that were better!
I rock climb, listen to jam bands, and play video games. They're all very real hobbies I could pass any reasonable test on, in the bizarre event that someone considered it appropriate or worthwhile to "test me" on my own hobbies.
But I certainly don't think all three of those hobbies are interchangeable in an interview setting. The article talks about the question having a 'catch', so apparently the author agrees that they weren't asking the question in good faith - there were specific hobbies that were better!
That assumes interviewer knows enough about randomly chosen hobby and ignores the fact that most people dont have deep hobbies.
In any case, if my hobby is something I am not comfortable to talk about with strangers (because they are likely to make weird gueses for example), you are not entitled to that information.
In any case, if my hobby is something I am not comfortable to talk about with strangers (because they are likely to make weird gueses for example), you are not entitled to that information.
Heh, my hobbies are actual HR repellant; building custom lock picks and participating in TOOOL and teaching knife throwing!
The IT department in my company seems to have HR people doing interviews with exactly these kinds of questions and consistently hiring a very specific type of people. Especially the architects and managers are very good at impressively "explaining" tech things to non tech people but they can't get anything real done. As soon as it gets detailed they have no clue. It feels like you are dealing with a group of actors who pretend to be tech savvy.
> Especially the architects and managers are very good at impressively "explaining" tech things to non tech people
Isn't that exactly the job for those two positions?
Isn't that exactly the job for those two positions?
It certainly is HALF of the job. But they can be good at this, and still suck at the other half, which is actually getting things done.
There's also similar case with guys whose positions are described as "evangelists" - some of those guys have been doing conference talks for so long that they cannot go past "hello world" stage for any technology that they claim to be experts in.
There's also similar case with guys whose positions are described as "evangelists" - some of those guys have been doing conference talks for so long that they cannot go past "hello world" stage for any technology that they claim to be experts in.
Yeah, evangelism is separate skill too. Good talkers and good coders are rarely the same (through it is certainly possie! )
"Isn't that exactly the job for those two positions? "
It's one part of the job. But they can't talk to tech people because they don't seem to know anything real.
Especially one guy sounds like he read a book "Enterprise Architecture for Dummies" and now he repeats words like "Integration patterns" but he can't give you a straight answer when you want details.
It's a really weird situation.
It's one part of the job. But they can't talk to tech people because they don't seem to know anything real.
Especially one guy sounds like he read a book "Enterprise Architecture for Dummies" and now he repeats words like "Integration patterns" but he can't give you a straight answer when you want details.
It's a really weird situation.
Gotcha. Such people can do quite a lot of damage.
When interviewing its immediately clear who is from IT and who is from HR. If HR outnumbers IT or IT isn't present at all, my interest in the job instantly declines to near zero. I wouldn't want to be on a team with people who can do well in an interview answering pedantic questions but can't perform in practice which is what you will end up with if HR does all the hiring.
Maybe I've gotten lucky, but through my career and various bouts of job hunting, I don't think I've ever encountered a company where HR (in most cases a recruiter) did more than a super-basic phone screen. They make the initial contact, find out if I'm actually interested in the job, and then the actual interview is with 1. the hiring manager, 2. his/her peers, and 3. peers of the role I'd be moving to. I've never encountered a situation where someone from HR is asking me technical or behavioral questions. Is this really that common?
Thank God it's not very common. But this article seems to encourage HR people to ask this kind of questions.
I have a question - do HR actually have any input into hiring these days? My experience mostly startups for many years is that HR people are concerned with paper work, health care, 401K, payroll etc. My experience has been that the "recruiter" is now the gatekeeper. They decide who's resume is seen by a team looking to hire.
And I think this is rather unfortunate as recruiters seem to be short term employees. I also find that the level of professionalism by recruiters to be extremely lacking - they often take weeks to get back to people, many seem unable to compose business emails. They send emails that begin with "Hey" and don't bother spellchecking. Many don't seem to have any technical knowledge or actually understand what's on a candidates CV. I have had them fail to call at a scheduled time, many don't send out calendar invites. Dealing with recruiters overall is a pretty miserable experience.
HR on the other hand is something that you can get a degree in. HR people seem to be longer term employees at companies, they seem to do things in a consistent and predictable manner, and seem to be quite professional in their communication.
I realize this is anecdotal and there are of course wonderful recruiters who have a good technical grasp and are very professional but the majority of my dealings with recruiters over many years now has informed me that these are the exceptions.
It seems there is no minimal set of qualifications to become a recruiter and shouldn't this one of the most important roles at a company that needs to grow to succeed? They are also kind of ambassador for the company in the sense that they are the first point of contact for a candidate.
Am I minority in this opinion? Or is there not actually a recruiter problem?
And I think this is rather unfortunate as recruiters seem to be short term employees. I also find that the level of professionalism by recruiters to be extremely lacking - they often take weeks to get back to people, many seem unable to compose business emails. They send emails that begin with "Hey" and don't bother spellchecking. Many don't seem to have any technical knowledge or actually understand what's on a candidates CV. I have had them fail to call at a scheduled time, many don't send out calendar invites. Dealing with recruiters overall is a pretty miserable experience.
HR on the other hand is something that you can get a degree in. HR people seem to be longer term employees at companies, they seem to do things in a consistent and predictable manner, and seem to be quite professional in their communication.
I realize this is anecdotal and there are of course wonderful recruiters who have a good technical grasp and are very professional but the majority of my dealings with recruiters over many years now has informed me that these are the exceptions.
It seems there is no minimal set of qualifications to become a recruiter and shouldn't this one of the most important roles at a company that needs to grow to succeed? They are also kind of ambassador for the company in the sense that they are the first point of contact for a candidate.
Am I minority in this opinion? Or is there not actually a recruiter problem?
HR do the dirty work of Curating Culture.
They try to satisfy the business need with a low-risk hire with an excellent value proposition while satisfying the requisite legal and other important 'stuff' like healthcare, onboarding, exit interviews, snacks.
That aside, I've seen resumes printed in Comic Sans make it through HR to the technical pre-screen.
They try to satisfy the business need with a low-risk hire with an excellent value proposition while satisfying the requisite legal and other important 'stuff' like healthcare, onboarding, exit interviews, snacks.
That aside, I've seen resumes printed in Comic Sans make it through HR to the technical pre-screen.
Here is a fundamental way HR can affect hiring:
Do you have a low credit score (maybe through no fault of your own, e.g. medical bills)? Do you have a "checkered" past -- maybe many years distant, now, with a solid track record in between?
Do you not test as "mainstream" on psychological evaluations?
These are all things that can stop you from getting to the next step in the hiring process, at an established company implementing the ever vaunted "best practices". (Which, when widely followed, can really only ever be the "standard" (some might say, mediocre) practices.)
HR doesn't evaluate your true professionalism. They just make sure you don't deviate too far from standard.
One reason actual teams and hiring managers sometimes have to put significant effort into fighting their own HR. Or deciding whether doing so is worth the risk to their own jobs and standing.
P.S. Yes, I'm pretty cynical about HR -- the result of long experience.
This month, I've watch HR at another large, established institution (this one focused on healthcare) take the easy way out of letting a supervisor and her favored push out a better employee, instead of investigating what's really going on (which, given the nature of the job and all the client interfacing and record-keeping, wouldn't be that hard to do).
HR there appears to actually have started picking up on what's happening (truly abusive behavior by this supervisor and her cronies, lying, and borderline neglect of their own jobs -- foisting their duties onto the underdog employees). Nonetheless, it's easier to accept a forced resignation than to try to address the team problem. Which will fester until something really goes wrong.
Or, if HR there is good at its job, within the scope of what they're willing to do, until they can build enough of a case/impetus against this supervisor to force her out, on their terms and timeline.
Even if they do that, they've let at least two of their best employees get screwed over, in the meantime. Go, HR! /s
As always, as an employee, HR IS NOT YOUR FRIEND. They take care of themselves, and the institution. You only win if it's the easy win, for them. Or with lawyers.
Do you have a low credit score (maybe through no fault of your own, e.g. medical bills)? Do you have a "checkered" past -- maybe many years distant, now, with a solid track record in between?
Do you not test as "mainstream" on psychological evaluations?
These are all things that can stop you from getting to the next step in the hiring process, at an established company implementing the ever vaunted "best practices". (Which, when widely followed, can really only ever be the "standard" (some might say, mediocre) practices.)
HR doesn't evaluate your true professionalism. They just make sure you don't deviate too far from standard.
One reason actual teams and hiring managers sometimes have to put significant effort into fighting their own HR. Or deciding whether doing so is worth the risk to their own jobs and standing.
P.S. Yes, I'm pretty cynical about HR -- the result of long experience.
This month, I've watch HR at another large, established institution (this one focused on healthcare) take the easy way out of letting a supervisor and her favored push out a better employee, instead of investigating what's really going on (which, given the nature of the job and all the client interfacing and record-keeping, wouldn't be that hard to do).
HR there appears to actually have started picking up on what's happening (truly abusive behavior by this supervisor and her cronies, lying, and borderline neglect of their own jobs -- foisting their duties onto the underdog employees). Nonetheless, it's easier to accept a forced resignation than to try to address the team problem. Which will fester until something really goes wrong.
Or, if HR there is good at its job, within the scope of what they're willing to do, until they can build enough of a case/impetus against this supervisor to force her out, on their terms and timeline.
Even if they do that, they've let at least two of their best employees get screwed over, in the meantime. Go, HR! /s
As always, as an employee, HR IS NOT YOUR FRIEND. They take care of themselves, and the institution. You only win if it's the easy win, for them. Or with lawyers.
I consider an HR interview to be a huge red flag when talking to a new company. In fact, I generally don't follow up if HR plays a significant presence in the initial interview process.
To me, it's a strong signal that the company doesn't understand software development and is trying to shoehorn it in like every other department. That's generally something that seeps into all facets of the workplace, and you find yourself wasting time arguing over locked-down machines, workspace standardization, common spaces, dress codes, etc.
Interview "advice" like this is a good example of why HR shouldn't be in the early process. I mean, seriously, hobbies?
PS. I agree there's a huge recruiter problem, but I don't think HR is the solution.
To me, it's a strong signal that the company doesn't understand software development and is trying to shoehorn it in like every other department. That's generally something that seeps into all facets of the workplace, and you find yourself wasting time arguing over locked-down machines, workspace standardization, common spaces, dress codes, etc.
Interview "advice" like this is a good example of why HR shouldn't be in the early process. I mean, seriously, hobbies?
PS. I agree there's a huge recruiter problem, but I don't think HR is the solution.
> do HR actually have any input into hiring these days ... my experience has been that the "recruiter" is now the gatekeeper.
What department are recruiters part of if not human resources?
What department are recruiters part of if not human resources?
> What department are recruiters part of if not human resources?
I assume they're referring to third-party recruiters
I assume they're referring to third-party recruiters
In the tech world at least recruiters are distinct from an an HR generalist.
In an org chart though yes recruiters are likely to be part of the HR department but they are not the same HR that you go to when you have a problem with a paycheck or health insurance.
I wasn't referring to third party recruiters but I have a suspicion and maybe someone could confirm this that many recruiters are actually contract workers - 3 months, 6 months etc and not regular employees of the company despite having a company email address. The reason I suspect this is that at most of the tech companies I have worked at recruiters seem to come and go at an alarming frequency.
In an org chart though yes recruiters are likely to be part of the HR department but they are not the same HR that you go to when you have a problem with a paycheck or health insurance.
I wasn't referring to third party recruiters but I have a suspicion and maybe someone could confirm this that many recruiters are actually contract workers - 3 months, 6 months etc and not regular employees of the company despite having a company email address. The reason I suspect this is that at most of the tech companies I have worked at recruiters seem to come and go at an alarming frequency.
I have experienced similar issues with recruiters. Going so far as to decline interviews with those companies.
> Try not to give your candidate any cause to suspect your company is selective or picky, especially when it comes to really good talent going to waste.
The best candidates will actively seek out places that are selective, because that's a reasonably good proxy for the average quality of your future teammates. Obviously there's a difference between "selective" and "hazing" in an interview, but "selective" when done fairly is usually a positive indicator.
The best candidates will actively seek out places that are selective, because that's a reasonably good proxy for the average quality of your future teammates. Obviously there's a difference between "selective" and "hazing" in an interview, but "selective" when done fairly is usually a positive indicator.
Most places believe they are selective, or present that image. They can claim they only interview X% of people who submit resumes, and then only hire X% from that batch, and present their process as more selective than a top university.
The problem is that it is difficult to know if a company is constructively selective, or if other variables dominate. You present the variable of self-selection, which definitely exists for some companies and positions.
Back to the original point, many people can be turned off when companies try to talk up their selectivity and maybe rightly so. Candidates don't have infinite time so there needs to be a higher $ reward for time invested applying to extra-selective organization (higher expected value), and they might have experience that shows this self-assertion is more arrogance than reality.
Swinging too far in the other direction to claim "we hire anyone!" can also turn away good candidates or attract people without the necessary skills.
The problem is that it is difficult to know if a company is constructively selective, or if other variables dominate. You present the variable of self-selection, which definitely exists for some companies and positions.
Back to the original point, many people can be turned off when companies try to talk up their selectivity and maybe rightly so. Candidates don't have infinite time so there needs to be a higher $ reward for time invested applying to extra-selective organization (higher expected value), and they might have experience that shows this self-assertion is more arrogance than reality.
Swinging too far in the other direction to claim "we hire anyone!" can also turn away good candidates or attract people without the necessary skills.
It seems much better to say "we are very selective. This is why we are talking to you". This makes the applicant feel special.
If you ask me why manhole covers are round, how many Wawas are in SE PA, or if an airplane would take off on a runway, I'm through with your interview. I'd rather spit innocuous horseshit about how great all the previous places in which I've worked have been. At the end of the day, I feel like these people aren't actually listening to what I'm saying.
Why is HR at the front end of the process, and not the back? If all goes well on the technical side and the team approves, shouldn't I then be moved on to meet the Human Resources department so they can ask the usual? I get that they should be involved, but in what capacity really?
Why is HR at the front end of the process, and not the back? If all goes well on the technical side and the team approves, shouldn't I then be moved on to meet the Human Resources department so they can ask the usual? I get that they should be involved, but in what capacity really?
This story is clearly intended to make HR people happy. HR should not be in any role of judging a candidate or employee. They are there to facilitate things and smooth'en things out. If you assume that they have any authority or hierarchy over other departments/staff you are doing HR wrong. Most of the software companies do it right. Smarter engineers do not work for companies that value superficial skills like the one's mentioned in the story.
If the interviewer is non-technical, I highly doubt they will be able to estimate the candidate's technical problem-solving abilities based on those questions. Trying to find out about soft skills is fine, but there is no magic trick to evaluate about something you don't understand yourself...
Guide for HR Managers: "Filter out resumes based on matchup between what the hiring manager asked for and what it says on the resumes in front of you. Send the resumes that pass the filter to the hiring manager. Then get out of the way".
Some interesting questions there, will have to try some of them. Mind, as part of a technical interview, and in between properly technical questions, to get an idea of the applicant's personality.
For example, being able to explain things in simple, clear language is a definite asset when talking to management or customers, which our engineers have to do from time to time.
I don't discuss my hobbies, politics, medical history, or where I go on vacation.
I don't want to hear about others' at the workplace, and no one needs to know about mine.
I don't want to hear about others' at the workplace, and no one needs to know about mine.
A few criticisms of the article here, but its as good a guide as anything I have seen, not focusing on the programming equivalent of Trival Pursuit questions.
Savy candidate will pick a hobby that will make him look good anyway. (Don't mention metal or rap, don't mention you actually don't have one, don't mention stereotypically girly hobby, do mention reading and that single robot set you bought and build five years ago.)