The other thing people so often misunderstand is that interviews are not really about ascertaining what the candidate knows but what kind of person they are. So many people prepare all kinds of technical answers and fall flat when asked culture questions.
The biggest question I am trying to answer is “do I want to spend a bunch of time with this person?”
For me it’s trying to determine that they’re not an asshole or somebody that requires excessive hand holding, and that they are curious thinkers who learn quickly and can problem solve in unique situations. The least important thing is that they meet the basic requirements, and that is just so that I can avoid arguing with HR about making an offer. My boss used to complain that I rejected way too many candidates, but recently has been complementing me on my hiring decisions as most have worked out really well. I almost don’t have to do any work these days!
I was helping a Director of Engineering hire some engineers, obviously. He had a unique question that he asked to judge candidates’ problem solving approach: “How do you deal with a situation where there’s ambiguity?” The question itself is ambiguous, so I thought the meta aspect of it was cool.
He said if their answer began with them saying they’d contact him about it, he wouldn’t hire them, because he felt it was a sign he’d be in an excessive handholding situation.
I’m going to steal this question!
This is all strange because often my biggest job stresses are over whether or not to loop in my boss on decisions. My issue is I’m completely happy to make 100% of the decisions involving my cases, I just worry that certain things that pop up are significant enough that I should clear it with my boss first. Of course if I clear it with her, I feel like I have annoyed her with something that I obviously could have done without her input.
Bleh.
This depends on your boss and their management style.
I want my direct reports making as many decisions as possible on their own, but there are definitely some things that they should consult with me on first. That line differs by employee and circumstances. My general guidance is for them to push out of their comfort zone and not be afraid to make the mistake fall on the side of being too aggressive, and we will correct as we go. I also give feedback if they approach me with something that they could have decided on their own. Not by saying “WTF are you bothering me with this for,” but by just providing guidance that they could have made this decision on their own. Eventually we work out the correct line for everybody.
But my team is small enough that we can communicate at least on a weekly basis if not more frequently. This approach is probably more difficult for people managing more than say 10 direct reports. (Which is too many imo, but lots of companies have what I would consider poor reporting structures.)
A really interesting paradox is that the best managers look like they aren’t doing any work at all… because if you’re a great manager everything you’re responsible for is just cruising along at 50,000 feet without any real turbulence. A common thing that goes wrong is organizations thinking that these people are unnecessary and cutting them without understanding what they have actually done, or how they did it. Needless to say when a great manager gets cut to save money all hell usually breaks loose within a few months of them exiting as soon as a real issue comes up without them there to fix it.
You know you’re about to be in trouble when someone says something like ‘well X department is awesome it basically runs itself’ when trying to explain why they can make cuts there. It doesn’t run itself, that’s a mirage created by the person running it being so good they make it look easy. If you absolutely must touch it treat the exercise like you’re defusing a bomb and be insanely careful. If you think your other problems are bad just imagine how much worse they’d be without your problem free department smoothly handling all of the external dysfunction you’re already throwing at it.
Hopefully you’ve talked to her about this? This shouldn’t be that much of a grey area. If it seems like you’re annoying her take that opportunity to ask for some good clear guidelines about when she wants to know things and why.
Definitely enjoying the class based interview takes. “If someone treats the company like it’s necessary for their survival, then I don’t want them.” Nice
Nobody said anything even remotely like this.
Your knee-jack response missed the point jbro was making He is arguing the interviewee often has more power than they think and don’t often enough leverage it.
It’s class based on the side of the worker.
Sorry, but if the most compelling reason somebody can come up with for wanting the job is that they’re desperate for any job, then that is definitely not somebody I am ever considering adding to my team. I want people with multiple options that want to come work with me because of my team and because of our prospects and because the job is compelling and interesting to them. We’re not running a charity. And there is nothing class based at all about my point of view. (If there is, please help me understand. But also note that I am an unapologetic capitalist that believes capitalism with controls is the best of a bunch of shitty systems. And yes I know the current system in the US is extra shitty and nowhere near enough controls.)
You’re obviously happy with your hiring results and I have no idea what industry you are in, but what you are interviewing for are people who can convince you they are sincere in caring about your company and what they do. Ask some of the people you’ve hired how many jobs they had applied for before they applied to your company and if they cared about those companies as much as they convinced you they cared about yours. On my last job search I applied at over 300 places and I cared about every one of them…
That’s one piece. The other pieces are convincing me that they can learn quickly and problem solve under stress and in unique situations. and also that they’re not assholes and can get things done cross-functionally without having direct authority over the people that they need to perform for them.
And I sucked at managing and delegating when I first started doing it. I got the job for my ability to problem solve and willingness to bust my ass and work well in a team based environment. My boss taught me how to manage effectively over like a decade or so across a couple of different companies. (Broken up by a ten year period where we didn’t work together.)
If you generically applied for 300 jobs with the same cover letter and cv of course it will take hundreds, assuming the role you are going for is some kind of professional thing.
It’s pretty obvious when someone has spammed a million places with a resume.
My response to this would be a blank stare and thinking in my head what a stupid fucking question, I don’t like interviews.
In general, interviews are a terrible way to know if someone is a good fit for a company. The best way, by far, is word of mouth.
I’m a college professor. When I was hunting for faculty jobs, I once flew to a university for two days of interviewing with 20+ people. First on the list was the department chair. After we sat down in his office, his first question was, “Why do you want to work in a second-rate department at a third-rate university?”
I looked down at my two-day schedule and sighed.
Another point I probably should have made is that I’m not hiring entry level people. Almost everybody that reports to me is a manager or sr. manager, and they are in multiple US states as well as two other countries. They need to be primarily self-directed problem solvers and I’ve never met a self-directed problem solver that didn’t have a million questions about everything and anything.
So why did you want to work there?