
Job Interview for IT Pro: Guide for HR Managers - IsaakTech
http://hrtechnology.info/blog/2015/11/16/job-interview-for-it-pro/
======
watwut
Guessing candidates personality and look at life based on hobbies is perfect
receipe for hiring based on various biases, prejudices and wrong guesses HR
manager will make about hobbies he/she knows little about.

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.)

~~~
merpnderp
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.

~~~
nsxwolf
So that's where we're at now? "Don't lie; we'll find out your real hobby is
needlepoint"

~~~
treehau5
"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_

~~~
Nadya
"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?"

~~~
treehau5
> 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.

~~~
Nadya
_> 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.

~~~
treehau5
> 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.

~~~
Nadya
>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._

------
maxxxxx
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.

~~~
watwut
> 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?

~~~
maxxxxx
"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.

~~~
watwut
Gotcha. Such people can do quite a lot of damage.

------
bogomipz
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?

~~~
chrisseaton
> 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?

~~~
bogomipz
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.

------
kcorbitt
> 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.

~~~
TheCowboy
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.

------
kriscuits
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?

------
yanilkr
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.

------
blauditore
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...

------
lostcolony
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".

------
nickserv
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.

------
jackskell
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.

------
collyw
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.

