Continuing on my previous theme of who should do the hiring, I’d like to focus for a moment on the people on the other side of the table. You know, people like me, who actually conduct the interviews. And since there have been plenty of times when I’ve also been a candidate, I have some insight into what it’s like to sit on both sides of the table.
It’s all too easy for me to get wrapped up in telling candidates what not to do when interviewing, while forgetting that interviewers also do silly things – or that many interviewers are just plain bad at interviewing. Hence I’ll describe some interviewer profiles that bother me, both as a candidate and as a fellow interviewer.
Some interviewers view the process as a battle of wits. i.e., they need to display their superiority over the candidate by asking them obscure questions or presenting bizarre puzzles, and beating them over the head when they inevitably fail to provide the right answer. Call it what you will, but I see it as a personality deficiency.
Other interviewers just love to hear the sound of their own voice and will talk on and on about themselves and their own job given the chance. As a candidate I used to like these types of interviewers, as I would sweat less when I was listening rather than talking. However, this situation is a net loss for the candidate, as they will lose the opportunity to make a positive impression on the interviewer. And so when that interviewer is asked later for a thumbs up or thumbs down on the candidate, their recollection will be murky and their response is likely to be “ehhh”, which usually equates to a thumbs down.
Some interviewers come into the interview totally unprepared. You can tell this is the case if they ask for a copy of your resume, when they should have already reviewed beforehand. It’s obvious they think they have better things to do, and don’t really want to waste their time on this exercise. Another sign is if they ask you one or two throwaway questions and then say, “Do you have any questions for me?”
Finally, perhaps the most useless interviewer is the “face time” person. This is typically a higher level manager who for organizational reasons has to be injected into the interview process, even though they’ll likely have close to zero interaction with the person after they are hired. The interview with this manager is merely a formality, as they are not really qualified to probe the candidate technically, nor can they answer the candidate’s detailed questions. Hence there is no upside to the candidate to this interview, only a downside; if the manager ends up not liking the candidate for superficial reasons, they will exercise their veto power over the candidate.
Monday, July 20, 2009
Monday, July 6, 2009
Who Should Be a Hiring Manager?
You might legitimately ask, what qualifies me (or anyone, for that matter) to be a hiring manager? Do I have some certificate from a Hiring Manager School? No, I do not. My only qualification for being a hiring manager is that I’ve been doing it for a while – which is a tautological argument.
I’ve seen lots of people conduct interviews, and usually at the start they are just as bad at running interviews as many candidates are at being interviewed. But most eventually figure out what works for them and settle down into a comfortable pattern. Of course, what works for one hiring manager doesn’t necessarily work for another manager, or even for the organization as a whole.
Ideally an organization should have clear standards on what is to be expected of the hiring manager and other interviewers. And it would be good to have a formal training regimen for such roles. Unfortunately, that is not the case at most companies, or at least the ones I’ve been at. It’s considered just another part of the job, and any training is to be gained on the battlefield.
My personal thoughts on hiring managers is that they should have the following qualifications:
1. They should have been at the company long enough to know what type of personality and skills are required to succeed there.
2. They should ideally have worked in both a development and management role, even if not at the same company.
3. They should be current on technology issues, even if only at a high level, so candidates cannot BS them.
4. They should have participated in interviews before (as interviewers, not as the ultimate decision maker).
5. They should have sat on the opposite side of the table -- i,e., as a candidate, multiple times in the past. For most people this is true, but there are those people who have worked at a single company their whole careers and don’t remember what it’s like to have to sweat bullets as a candidate.
6. Finally, the hiring manager should be the person the candidate will report to if hired. A manager should not make the decision on a hire if that person will ultimately report to another manager (you might be surprised, but this does happen!).
I’ve seen lots of people conduct interviews, and usually at the start they are just as bad at running interviews as many candidates are at being interviewed. But most eventually figure out what works for them and settle down into a comfortable pattern. Of course, what works for one hiring manager doesn’t necessarily work for another manager, or even for the organization as a whole.
Ideally an organization should have clear standards on what is to be expected of the hiring manager and other interviewers. And it would be good to have a formal training regimen for such roles. Unfortunately, that is not the case at most companies, or at least the ones I’ve been at. It’s considered just another part of the job, and any training is to be gained on the battlefield.
My personal thoughts on hiring managers is that they should have the following qualifications:
1. They should have been at the company long enough to know what type of personality and skills are required to succeed there.
2. They should ideally have worked in both a development and management role, even if not at the same company.
3. They should be current on technology issues, even if only at a high level, so candidates cannot BS them.
4. They should have participated in interviews before (as interviewers, not as the ultimate decision maker).
5. They should have sat on the opposite side of the table -- i,e., as a candidate, multiple times in the past. For most people this is true, but there are those people who have worked at a single company their whole careers and don’t remember what it’s like to have to sweat bullets as a candidate.
6. Finally, the hiring manager should be the person the candidate will report to if hired. A manager should not make the decision on a hire if that person will ultimately report to another manager (you might be surprised, but this does happen!).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
