A Good Interview
Vikas Joshi
Founder | Quality Enthusiast | Team Builder | Test Automation Architect | Public Speaker | Author
How to prepare for an interview??
How to prepare your CV?
You would have come across these articles a million times. And 99% of the time it is meant for an “Interviewee”/"Candidate".?
But what is seriously missing is Guidelines for the "Interviewer"/"Interview Panel".?
How to prepare for an interview? - for Interviewer.?
How to scan through a CV ? - for the interviewer.?
This article will talk about the “Interviewer” side of things:?
[A take on how to fill the gaps - few accounts may appear clichéd but they are very evident too]
Preparation happens on both the sides of the interview.?
After a lot of preparation & hours of work, a CV is found (or a job), “kind of” meets the requirement & both mutually agree to discuss - a.k.a Interview.
By default it is assumed the candidate/interviewee will prepare for the interview but listed below are few of the key points for the Interviewer (employer,manager, interview panel).?
My talk with Yana Martens covers topics listed in the article as well:
A Good Start - Creating a Job-Description (JD)
Many times the Job-description is vague - listing out all the possible skills that can be there in the market or keeping it very generic.?
Usually the reason for vagueness is - while having a very specific JD can be helpful but that may work for specific technical skills but not for “other non-technical” skills that form the 80% of skillset & usually it is very hard to articulate them as well. Sometimes even the tech-skills are open-ended for someone to come and decide what’s right/good, hence keeping it generic.?
While this vagueness in job-description gives a vast scope to waste of time, unnecessary interviews & what not - it does bring in alot of CVs too & who doesn’t like choice (but at what cost)?
The right start to have a good interview is to have a “Clear” JD. A good start is half done. Now, let us say this vagueness in JD is unavoidable - due to the reason specified above.?
A JD with few specifications & few generic skills is put out there (that's how most of the JDs look like).
CVs have started pouring-in...
Ideal: Ideally, JD should state clearly, what are the roles & the responsibilities , then technical skill set & then other skills looking for [- what is the percentage of each skill - if that’s something feasible. Say for a Lead role - one needs technical hands-on & people skills; state to what percentage technical skills are important and what percentage people skills are required? If possible. ]
Gap: This vagueness in JD leaves the entire exercise open-ended.?
Outcome: Loads of unwanted CVs pour in. Extra time spent sorting, shortlisting, not getting the right candidate.?
Picking the Right CV:?
Now, picking the right CV is something intricate. Different CV, Different formats, Different content - with all the time the interviewer or recruiter goes through the CVs, finds the keywords - maximum match found- shortlists a few.
Keyword-matching is a very critical skill here.?
While Keyword-matching may work best for technical skills, it may or may not be the best way for finding non-technical skills or for gauging attitude.?
But aren’t most of the Interviewers looking for “The Right Attitude”??
Is it possible to find the candidate with “The Right Attitude” or the “non-technical skill set” through CV??
Ideal: Ideally, a CV is well written, supported by cover-letter.?Highlights all the possible skills mentioned in JD. (A perfect match: all the skills listed in JD with all its vagueness are covered in the CV. Tip: Don’t let go that candidate)
Gap: Candidate sends the default CV backed by default cover-letter considering the JD was vague/generic enough to find 60-80% match.
Outcome: Extra time spent in looking for “that right CV”
The Right Attitude
With all the specifications or vagueness in JD, say you found a bunch of candidates with an impressive CV. The CV ticks all the boxes (80% of them at least, if there is a checklist).?
Most of them have all the necessary technical skills.?
But is it possible to gauge their attitude?
Yes, to a certain extent.?
One can look for repetitive words, prominent words, achievements, career-graph in CV or details in professional-network, recommendations if any, online-presence; if analysed properly one doesn’t really have to interview the candidates.?
[Like Google doesn’t really have to interview a candidate, because it already knows what you do; hence don’t be surprised if Google sends a job offer-letter in your inbox in near future based on your online activity, with a pay package based on your expenses & saving plans :-)]
Technical skills can be acquired but attitude is something one carries always & while one has to read through lines in CV to find the technical skills, for non-technical skills/attitude one has to read-between-the-lines.?
Ideal: The candidate is shortlisted for technical skillset & “The Right Attitude” is evident in the CV & in online-presence.
Gap: It’s really hard to find out whether the attitude gauged through CV is in fact true? This is as vague as the vague JD itself. Attitude itself is subjective to the environment, time, place & people.?
Outcome: if aptitude & attitude are gauged correctly, interview call is made & interview scheduled.?
Interview Panel
Ideal: Person who has created the JD & shortlisted the CV should be on the Interview Panel. Key stakeholders should be in the Interview Panel & interview the candidate together & mutually discuss after the interview, what they think about the candidate.
Gap: Usually the person who has created the JD &/or the person who has shortlisted the CV are different from the people who are interviewing. And mostly the person interviewing is informed at the last minute to interview, who himself/herself hasn’t seen the JD or looked at CV.
Outcome: Multiple Interviews scheduled on different dates & times. People are on the interview panel to test the candidate on the interviewer's own (biased/rigged/distorted) scale. Each one making up their own opinion about the candidate.?
The Interview
Finally the day has come, face to face.?
Q1. “Tell me about yourself”?
Really?
Usually the answer to such a clichéd question is ignored by the interviewer himself/herself & has to pause the candidate if the candidate is enthusiastic to talk about himself/herself. :-)?
While the interview is about knowing each other; the Interviewer should have done their homework by at least going through the CV.?
Seldom the interviewer introduces himself/herself - This is a very critical point. This is the biggest unknown in any interview, after the vagueness of the JD.?
As a candidate it is very important to know whom the candidate is talking to, so that the candidate can tailor his/her answers accordingly.
Don’t want to see a non-technical Manager-Interviewer going blank on hearing intensely technical details from the candidate!
Hence at least 10% of time should be spent on introducing the Interviewer. Because the candidate has shared the CV & is called for an interview; implying 80% of the job is done- about knowing the candidate.?
If there are 3 people interviewing, it is important that each one gives complete details about themselves.?
If a candidate is called for an interview - after checking all the tech, non-tech skills that means the candidate is 80% fit & his/her applying for the roles show their interest/attitude too.
Interviewer may look for the candidate’s communication skills, validate technical skills & test their attitude.
But the biggest gap is interviewer himself/herself if :?
Many interviewers look for that one missing?technical or non-technical skill that should form the basis for rejecting the candidate - such a negative perspective after all the hard work!
Interview becomes Interrogation: Where the pressure by unknown authority a.k.a Interviewer is put on the known Interviewee to prove fit.
Ideal: If all the previous steps were done right, the interview is all about welcoming the candidate into the team, looking for reasons to bring the candidate in. A mutual discussion on specifics & the unknowns, so that there are no surprises on either side, especially for the candidate who joins the team.?
Gap: Interviewer(s) doesn’t introduce himself/herself. Interviewer coming with absolutely no idea about the candidate/preconceived notion/with an attitude of fault-finding in the candidate. Thus, creating a big gap in a very important conversation.?
Outcome: There is an interview panel about whom the interviewee has absolutely no clue about, JD was as vague as it was to talk to the unknown people on questions which the interviewee is unaware of which holds what weightage. 99% possibility Interviewer fails to recognize value the candidate can add to the team (a.k.a rejection).?
Technical Test
Many interviews start with Technical Tests or end with Technical tests.?
Ideal:?A technical test with clear requirements is provided. Candidates complete the assignment during the call. Duration is small, interview panel gauges the candidates thought process - preferably design patterns.?
Gap:?Vague Requirements without telling what the code should contain will lead to eliminate good candidates.?
Assumptions are always a bad idea; it's always good to be discrete & clear in requirements - even after sufficient clarity/details there is a high-probability of misinterpretation that can be overcome by good communication.?
Purpose of Technical Test?
In the era of Internet, one can find sample code anywhere. How would you gauge a candidate? Based on whose source was better??
Sometimes Leads/Managers who are not very technical or rather who are not good gauging the candidates technically have technical tests as a means to overcome their own shortcomings, which is well justified. But how well the whole exercise is carried out is something worth a discussion.?
Outcome:
Filtering Genuine vs Fake candidates :?
Most of these technical tests are offline, in a sense that no one really looks at who wrote the code unless it's a live test. Live tests are better because you can notice candidates thought process instead of end product. If these technical tests are to filter-out fake candidates, such candidates can anyhow get good quality code written by others - thus completely defeating the purpose.?
Reality is if Google & other internet sites/services go down most of the coders will go down with it because now most coders look for these services instead of finding the solution hard-way, the old fashioned way. This is partly right as well, isn't that the real purpose of Internet? It helps you solve the problem faster than how you would have done before the Internet. Information is all over the internet, it's all about using it - how well - is something subjective to the observer (interviewer) but probability that because it's perception- it is subjected to differences. So, are these technical tests really serving the purpose they are meant for??Time to re-think.
Cross-Questioning: Turning the table
Every interviewer at least knows to give a "final-say" to the interviewee - that chance to speak out, cross-questioning thus, turning the table.?
Ideal:?Ideally the candidate should get equal amount of time to ask question to the interview panel that is 50%. Enough time for the candidate to know about the work, the culture, whether he/she want's to really fit into the role, are there any surprises at the end of the tunnel?
Gap:?Most of the candidates get last 5 min to ask the questions, more as a formality. Or the interviewer doesn't have a proper answer to the candidate's questions: like details about the role, project, team etc... - an extension to the vague job description that we discussed earlier.?
Some interviewers go that extra mile to give a good impression about the team & organisation while hiding the shortcomings. While that may be OK to some extent but more realistic the impressions are from both sides lesser are the chances of any disappointment in future.?
Outcome:?This can be quite devastating. Many candidates apply by looking at the company or the brand name or the technology stack or something that they assume would be right for them.?
After rigorous interview process, the interview panel may have assessed the candidate but did the candidate get the time to assess the job & the team he/she is planning to join? Isn't that important? I think that's the most important part of job -to know what one is signing up for.?
Some interviewers are kind enough to give 15 min out of 1 hour to ask, and the answers coming back from the interview panel are less prepared than those of the candidates.?
If the questions from the candidate are pointed they leave interview panel baffled, because at times the interviewer thinks he/she is there to ask, while the candidate is there to answer or rather prove his/her worth. But the moment tables are turned, the interviewer is more confused & unclear about the job, the team, the future of the project thus leaving a big gap in what should be a 2 way win-win deal.?
Selection/Rejection
Ideal: Maximum of 2 candidates are interviewed because both have equal credentials & seems a good match. The 2nd one is interviewed as a back-up in case 1st one backs-out due to personal reasons - and should be informed prior about this.?
Gap: With great power comes great responsibility. Not everyone knows how to handle the power.?Interview is such a power play.
It is a negative aspect of the human psyche - ability to reject others gives a sense of (fake) power; just like ability to criticise. But a person who can handle this power sensibly is one who uses it meaningfully by valuing time & effort spent in the entire process.?
Outcome: After all the positives & negatives, with all the gaps in the interview process; most likely is rejection of 90% of the candidates ( out of 10).?
And usually that 1 candidate selected is also out of desperation because time has run out in rejecting the good candidates & looking for their faults.?
Conclusion:?
A good interview process is wherein there is a “Shift-Left” approach just like in STLC. The earlier you involve Quality Assurance activities in the process the better it is & saves more time later on.?
Similarly, if more ground work is done on the requirement , creating the right JD, getting the right CVs, going through them extensively, creating the right interview panel , giving the proper information to the candidate,?asking the right questions & lastly telling why they would want the candidate to join their team.?
After all the process if the candidate is not selected, it is not failure of the candidate, but of the interviewer & the process associated.?
It’s time the Interviewer (like the interviewee) makes a list of lessons learnt , refines the JD, checklist & uses the right search criteria to shortlist the CVs and interviews the candidates with “The Right Attitude”?
This will lead to a conclusion of a very constructive process & beginning of a great journey together.?
Disclaimer: Views expressed in this article are general, pointed to make the Selection process smooth n flawless - making sure the limitations of process/people don't become hurdles in forming what could be a great team!