Discussion on:

Interview beyond a candidate's technical skills

I share your point and agree that soft skills are essential to a productive and valuable IT staff in an organization. Technical skills are just the tools for the IT job, but the most important is how to apply the right skills/tools and how to applythe skills/tools right which, I think, all depends on the soft skills, e.g. the attitude, decision making, troubleshooting, etc. People issues are another good points you mentioned which I totally agree with. I can’t find any IT job that requires no people communication and collaboration.

Back to the interview, which the most I concern is, how do we craft the questions so that we can test and verify the candidates within limited interview time? Do you have any good suggestion or reference?

I agree with the Soft Skills are very important to a candidate. We ask targeted questions like - please describe an event that you had to be proactive on or please describe some presentation you have developed. please describe how you handle a conflict with team members..

then casual discussion every day life - can give you insite into their people and communcations skills, or even some leadership skills. Maybe they are the president of an organization - maybe they are a coach for their son/daughters softball or soccer teams..

To select the correct candidate it just not - what MS BS do you know and What MS CRTS do you hold... You have to work at it - "Only lousy managers hire lousy employees - Quality Managers hire Quality employees." - A lazy manager will not take the time to interview candidates correctly where a quality manger will take the time upfront and during the interview to gather all the inforation they need.,.

Have you ever interviewed with one of those losey managers - "So I see you are an CNE, an SSA. So what do you think of MS's new NT-2000 environment." - "What does TCPIP stand for" - "What is Tunneling" - "Well do you have any questions for me" - "Thanks for you time - we will be in contact".. Where was the Interview beef.. and if you ask questions - they keep the answers short - "Yep - nice place to work" - "Teams are fun" ...

Build you list of targeted questions... geared at each soft skill - and you will have your answers...

Obviously when they hired you they didn't give you a spelling or a grammar test...so you must work for one of the "losey" managers...LOL

(TechRepublic has many articles with interview questions, try searching their archives.)

If you limit your time to interview, you are shooting yourself in the foot. Spend the time to find the right person at the beginning, or the wrong person will waste your time in the end.

Our company has a long second interview process. If the candidate makes it past the short first interview, the second interview is quite thorough:

10am Interviewer with co-workers.
12pm Lunch, which offers a great opportunity to see if the person will fit with the company culture.
1pm Interview with supervisor.

You need to develop some targeted questions :

Leadership - describe anytime in your career when you lead a project / effort or task.

Communications - so I see on your resume that you made presentation to executive staff - could you describe the presentation.

Peopleskills - I see on your resume you where a project leader - did you ever have staffing conflicts and if so how did you resolve them..or how did you motivate your team.

Then just open discussion about everyday events - maybe they are a coach for their kids softball team or volunteer at a local fire company - or are the president of the PTA or some other organization..

Remember Lazy Managers - on average hire poor performers - Quality Managers - on average hire high performers ... Why because the lazy managers don't do their homework for the interview... a few questions - then loads of BS - and if they like you your in.. if you would want to work for them ...

I recently hired a new employee. If I had to do it again, I would still be interviewing. I was told by the higher-ups that I had to hire now or the position would be closed.

After providing my reasoning why I hadn't found the right person yet, I was informed again to "hire now or close the position listing."

The reason why I hadn't found the right person was that an HR representative was in the room during the interview process. Whenever I asked a non-job related question, the interviewee was told not to respond as it wasn't work-related. I discussed this at length w/ HR after the first interview. The reason I was asking such questions was to determine the person's soft-skills. The response was the same, if the questions aren'twork-related, they cannot be answered. This was dictated by corporate counsel. I guess he figures it's better to hire folks who are technically capable, but couldn't hold their own with a seven year old in a social situation.

Any suggestions ongetting around this hurdle?

HR is correct in directing you to steer away from "non work related questions" to an extent although I find it harmless to ask a person what they like to do as long as you steer away from legal areas. Because of the legal ramifications that exist inour current society, your company may have been burned by an inappropriate question asked by a manager. Sure sounds like it if HR is sitting in on an interview; that's unusual.

You can determine soft skills by structuring the question to a work related situation. For example, to determine whether the person is a team player, you can structure a question such as, "How would you describe yourself in the workplace - independent worker, prefer to be part of a team, leader, follower, etc.?"

Ask several open ended questions that allow the candidate to give you more than "yes" or "no" or multiple choice answers you provide. Even in the question above, if the answer is, "I'm a team player.", you can ask the candidate to explain why and give you work related examples that support the answer. Often, the explanation actually points to something else or creates additional questions that you will want to ask.

I wouldn't let the fact that HR is there deter my ability to get underneath the soft skills. It's easy enough to do by asking work related questions. I would certainly try to understand why HR feels there is a need to be in the room. You may find out that you are the one that has burned them in the past and don't realize it. It helps both of you to know why they feel a need to be in every interview.

Once again - in walks HR and screws up the corporation - FUBAR - Another example to terminate the HR department... What good are they.. Zip - save major dollars by canceling that department... Over paid - underworked - top heavy - department - kind of like our government - need to find a good word for them - like Politics -

"Poli" in Latin meaning "many" and "tics" meaning "blood-sucking creatures."

Can we find one like that for the HR department..

The purpose of HR staff sitting in the interview board is sometimes to try to make the interview more "objective" since there is a third-party involved. And they are 'supposed' to be the experties in interviewing and understanding what questions are valuable and effective to find a suitable candidate (oh! but sorry, I still can't meet such HR guys so far in my over ten years working life.)

Anyway, to cope with this, I'd suggest you to list down all the basic questions and communicate clearly with your HR staff beforehand to get a mutual understanding on the objective of each question. I think it's not a bad idea as, to be objective, we should ask some sort of "standard questions" to all the candidates and then the supplementary ones according to the candidate's response. Only we've a "standard" as a ground and get the comparable results can we evaluate objectively the candidates performance. I don't think it's a fair and effective interview by asking arbitrary questions (even ifrelated and sensible) to different candidates and then choosing the "right" one just based on the perception on their responses.

It's funny how HR's presence tries to objectify the interviewing process.

I've always laughed at job requirements which state something like "Requires 5 to 7 years in XYZ Development." That sounds so scientifically generated, that someone who has less than 5 or more than 7 years is hereby certified undeniably incompetent, esp. when the Grand Jury of HR has declared so.

It then never ceases to amaze me how one 3-letter word is used by many from HR to hiring managers when they reject a candidate. It is the catch-all phrase in the age of avoiding lawsuits. All HR and managers need to say is, "Sorry, we just didn't think you were a good FIT!"

Can somebody provide the function, equation or otherwise objective capture explaining the word "FIT"?

It's been debated whether programming is a science or an art. The same can be said of hiring, and the more I do it, the more I tend to lean towards the art side. Every so often, I've heard the most technical guy say of a rejected candidate, "He really did know his stuff, but I just didn't like him."

Intuition lives, even in left-brain professions!

There are plenty of "social skills" situations in the office place. The lunchroom, the hallways, the personal habits of co-workers are all loaded with opportunities for demonstrating social skills -- and sources for questions for your candidate. Also, put the burden back on HR to help you craft solid questions that are acceptable to them/you/and legal.

Given the abysmal writing skills of many people in the workforce today (both technical and non-technical), I've been thinking about asking candidates to write a paragraph in order to evaluate their communication skills. Perhaps something as simple as asking them to write down why they want the job and how they?d fit in after they?ve completed the interview. Requesting this before the interview might be an even better option, as it would show if they have researched the company.

Unfortunately, I?ve found people who are technically competent, but who can?t put cogent thoughts on paper, won?t put a concise subject on an email message, don?t use punctuation or proper capitalization, or send all correspondence in ?pager speak?, such as, ?GR8 nwz...CU ltr?. Technical acumen is important, but the soft skills are probably more important.

Countless job ads and requirements state, "Must have excellent oral and written communication skills." Yet such a request has become very trite and meaningless. In all the interviews I've been to, I never recall any hiring manager asking me to either give an oral presentation or supply a written sample. Fellow candidates report the same disappointment / laugh.

So shoffman, you've got our support for having candidates provide proof that they are interested in the job and can clearly communicate it.

P.S. If it's writing you like, please note we also like job offers IN WRITING!

Two weeks ago I had an interview with a firm. This was an in-person interview after three phone interviews. They asked me to bring an hour presentation to the interview and be prepared for a written exam.

The interview included:
lunch with potential supervisor
one hour interview with potential supervisor and his director
presentation and questions
written exam
meet and greet with other potential peers in the company

This is a very time consuming and expensive process for both the interviewer(s) and interviewee. I would not recommend it for initial interviews, but once the candidate list is down to two or three it really gives the candidate an in-depth view of the company and the company an opportunity to see the candidates in a 'modified' work environment.

While a tool like PI can help to understand a candidate in the limited time of an interview, it's necessary to recall it's only a tool. And this hammer has shortcomings.

These tools (esp. those derived from Myers-Briggs) try to predict future behavior based on the past. Yet all they really report is tendency. Faced with the same situation, a human being may choose a different action. We're not robots.

It is understandable why so many long for predictors. People were once more than willing to develop a relationship over time. Married people wouldn't automatically file for divorce upon a hardship. Employers and employee stayed together in good and bad times.

Nowadays, the demands and scene are different. Everybody wants to know everything about each other up front. Many a manager now fears to hire the wrong person. Yet with today's scare, managers appear to cry that they are extremely ill-equipped to handle any kinds of failures.

These tools attempt to project onto the future based on past. Yet look at IT itself. How many developments in IT can be accurately forecast based on what we did yesterday?

Moreover, when it comes to job change, some top achievers specifically look for something else because theywant to break away from their past. They're ashamed of it, they've simply outgrown it and are capable of much more. Question then is, will the employer be ready, able and willing to accept such change?

In a progressive field like IT, it's incumbent to focus more on the present. The past can be easily rewritten, esp. in response to questions that can't be verified. About the best predictor I've found is to have the candidate demonstrate his proficiency in what the employer needs today. Yet since so many companies have no idea what they want and need NOW, it's easy to dwell on the past.

Trite yet true, "Past performance is no guarantee of future results."