Interviewing candidates 22

[slickdeals]

I am seeking feedback on how some of your firms conduct interviews for engineers in the 0-3 years of experience. More specifically, are your interviews strictly non-technical in nature or a combination of non-technical with a 10-20 question test to check their technical abilities.

I would like to introduce a technical aspect to the interview, nothing too fancy with higher level math or fancy engineering, but checking for common sense and foundational principles key to succeeding in our business.

Thanks for contributing!

 

[milkshakelake]

Respectfully, I wonder if some (I hesitate to say all) of you have lost to time the memory of what it feels like to be brand new and moderately unsure of whether or not everything is going to work out in your favor.

I'm not sure I understand your point. Yes, it was extremely difficult to get my first job and secure it. But we're managers or business owners now, and we need to apply the right amount of pressure to make a good hiring decision. Not too much (like some of the sample questions here), not too little.

 

[AaronMcD]

I have never interviewed someone. In my last interview with a tiny company 7 years ago, he wanted to see some of my work, and other than that he just showed me a project he was working on and we discussed it for a while.

http://www.hellodwell.design

 

[SwinnyGG]

I'm not sure I understand your point.

The point was in reference to phamENG's statement that the power imbalance between interviewer/interviewee is not huge (at least, that's what I think he was saying).

I disagree with that. The stakes for young engineer are much, much higher than they are for a successful company. If you hire someone and they crash and burn, you're out a few months and some money, sure - but they are now saddled with a potential negative impact on their career which may take a very long time to overcome. Years.

But we're managers or business owners now, and we need to apply the right amount of pressure to make a good hiring decision. Not too much (like some of the sample questions here), not too little.

Couldn't agree more. I think if it wasn't already clear, this discussion makes it clear that finding that 'right' amount of pressure is very difficult to do consistently.

 

[phamENG]

SwinnyGG - I was referring more to the exchange in the interview. Tanking an interview doesn't necessarily tank your ability to get an interview at another firm. If it does, you might be able to sue them or file a claim against them under an anti-blacklisting statute.

Every interview I've gone into, I've gone into it with the knowledge that I owe the interviewer a certain level of respect, and expecting them to show me the proper level of respect in return. An interview is a two way street. As an engineer, especially a junior engineer, the candidate has every right to ensure that they are entering a firm with a positive mentoring environment that will teach them what they need to succeed. To my dishwasher analogy - the dishwasher doesn't need to know how good the chef is, they just need to do the dishes. The grad engineer needs to know how good his/her superiors are going to be, because they'll be shaping their professional career in ways that nobody else will.

I totally agree with you that, once employment has begun, the pendulum shifts and the power dynamic is more on the employer's side for quite a while.

Respectfully, I wonder if some (I hesitate to say all) of you have lost to time the memory of what it feels like to be brand new and moderately unsure of whether or not everything is going to work out in your favor.

I think about it every day. As a business owner in a cut-throat, commodotized industry, it's always a concern. I've taken work from nearly all of the other firms in my area, and if I haven't then it's probably been too long since I've worked on their type of project. If something goes sideways with my business, how many of them are willing to take me on? Even if they do, my salary won't be what it is now, and I wont see the profits from the business operations. Either way, it would be a jarring and uncomfortable transition that, like a young grad, would likely take a few years to recover from (or, more likely, adjust to).

 

[YoungGunner]

IMO, that test is pretty far over the top. It feels like an attempt to mess with the interviewee's head. If I was the interviewee, I would be wondering what life would be like within the company culture. The interviewer failed the psychological test in that case, LOL.

Most of the students have actually expressed how fun and different it is. That comes from those in the interview but also those who've been hired. IMO it was better than the technical challenge we gave before because we can see clear patterns. And again, I express my previous record of 25 offers - 25 acceptances. Doesn't seem like that test has turned anyone away.

 

[dik]

Thanks...

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

 

[YoungGunner]

To add to some additional support for other's comments:

1) Totally agree that transcripts do not indicate a good engineer. Had a gal work for us for 2 years and in a performance review I was blunt about how she was doing. She broke down a bit and said "I don't really know what I'm doing." I responded "but you are near 4.0 student! Surely that shows you know what is going on." She looked at me and said "I am Asian - of course I get good grades."
2) I had a technical evaluation for every job interview I've had related to structures. I recently was enticed by another company and started down their interview path and they told me that after a personality interview they would do a technical evaluation. I chose not to continue interviewing with them because loyalty for my current company flared up but it was interesting to see that even as a P.E. they wanted an evaluation.

I don't think there is any clear-cut way of determining whether someone will be a great fit or not. Engineering has a lot of particular talents required and few candidates have all of them. I've seen people who presented themselves great in the interview but had poor work ethic in practice, those who were technically savvy with typical engineering problems but are unwilling to think outside their formal education, those who have amazing spatial awareness for 3d but fail to follow load paths, those who are great engineers but SUPER SLOW and not profitable. Ultimately we can't test for all the nuances with a candidate, so we have to find ways of drawing out some of the items that seem more critical. For some companies, that personality is going to matter most. For others, the technical expertise. While I boast about my interview process which has a great track record of getting successful employees, there are some that slip through that I wish I did not hire, simply because I can't test every aspect. All hiring comes with some measure of risk and we do the best we can to mitigate that through reasonable means.

 

[WARose]

And again, I express my previous record of 25 offers - 25 acceptances. Doesn't seem like that test has turned anyone away.

Those 25 must have really needed a job. I would walk out on anyone who gave me something like that mess. Mark the center of the page? Solve this in terms of five? Mark the box on the right....when it is on the left? With that pink marker I told you to bring?

With me, this interview would have ended with a line from a Johnny Paycheck song.

 

[chris3eb]

YoungGunner mentioned that they are hiring freshman and sophomores that haven't had a structural class:

Keep in mind we even hire freshman and sophomores who have never had a structural class yet

And it sounds like they are hiring a lot of them:

We go over the benefits of working for us (performance reviews and raises every 6 months, 30 other students that are potential contacts after you graduate, etc)

I would guess that YoungGunner's success rate is more due to their company's willingness to hire young students than due to that bizarre test. I couldn't imagine many mid-level or higher engineers would entertain that thing.

To YoungGunner, I don't mean to pile on and I'm not trying to say that you aren't well-intentioned, but I just can't wrap my head around that test.

 

[KootK]

What power differential? That's why I said experienced interviewee.

In many interview situations, the interviewee actually wants to receive a job offer. Or so I hear. In such situations, the interviewer becomes a sort of gatekeeper who controls whether or not the interviewee gets what they want. This creates a power differential. A rather obvious one in my opinion.

The next time that I sexually harass a subordinate, I be sure to remind them that it's okay because we have comparable GPA's.

 

[KootK]

With all of the hand wringing above about 'testing', how many of you are likely to offer an interview to young kid who may not even be an EIT yet who flamed out at one of your competitors in less than a year? Let alone offer them a job? That early failure is a black mark on the record that can take years to fade.

I've seen this play out in ultra sad fashion:

1) Middling candidate lucks out and gets first job with top tier firm.

2) Candidate is not terrible but top tier firm knows that they can do better. Fired.

3) Other local top tier forms no longer interested in candidate.

4) Second tier firm hires candidate.

5) Candidate's odds of success diminish at second tier firm because second tier firms are often more cut throat and fast paced than the top tier firms.

6) Candidate flames out at second tier firm and the decent into madness continues...

Sometimes this stabilizes. Other times these guys and gals get booted right out the industry before they even get their licenses. Once you've got that loser stench about you -- deserved or not -- it can be a bitch to wash clean.

 

[271828]

KootK, not sure if you're joking or being snarky.

An experienced interviewee might be considering other firms, including your competitors, and he/she might be on the same or higher technical level than you are. He/she might be interviewing your firm as much as the other way around. That's why I asked "what power differential?"

 

[Just Some Nerd]

Having only a couple of years ago been a grad myself, I expect that YoungGunner's test is only flying *because* they're giving the test to people who haven't actually done all that much grad hunting before. It seems unprofessional and seems mostly appealing to those whose primary frame of reference is still just standardised testing rather than other interviews.

To me, half the test questions seemed to scream "I'm here to mess with the candidate to see how they react" or worse, "I'm here to test if the candidate can survive a hostile work environment". I don't know if this was the experience for others when it comes to competing with other grads over a grad program roles, but after enough interviews your thought process during them becomes about trying to guess what the "real" answer the company is looking for which will stuff up plenty of good candidates. It also doesn't surprise me getting 100% of offers accepted, unless you're offering to people who didn't do well on the test - they're already in the interview and want the job, and roles (especially for those still in their earlier years) are highly, highly coveted.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Why yes, I do in fact have no idea what I'm talking about

 

[KootK]

KootK, not sure if you're joking or being snarky.

Both, per usual.

An experienced interviewee might be considering other firms, including your competitors, and he/she might be on the same or higher technical level than you are. He/she might be interviewing your firm as much as the other way around. That's why I asked "what power differential?"

Sure, sometimes it's a buyer's market. The vast majority of the time, however, it's not. Then, the employer holds more power than the candidate. Usually significantly more. Do you dispute that? Or you do you simply wish to restrict the discussion of your hypothetical to only the highly rare situations in which the candidate seeking employment holds as much or more market leverage than the employer offering it?

When the normal power differential flip flops, that's just a reverse interview.

When there is no power differential, that's just a "meeting". I had to develop a pretty good rolodex of client contacts before I started getting these.

 

[271828]

I don't dispute that, when it comes to new guys, there is a significant power differential. I'm not sure there's one for experienced candidates. As you mentioned, it depends on the market.

I was mainly trying to see if what's good for the goose is good for the gander. LOL

 

[alt0]

I'll offer a differing opinion and just say that I love this style of interview exam- way more fun than the standard fare.
I think if I were to receive something like this I'd be simultaneously bewildered, yet grinning during the entire thing.

 

[SwinnyGG]

Once you've got that loser stench about you -- deserved or not -- it can be a bitch to wash clean.

Exactly. And the negative impact to said top-tier firm over the same time period is basically negligible.

If that's not the definition of a massive power imbalance I don't know what is.

....when it comes to new guys, there is a significant power differential. I'm not sure there's one for experienced candidates.

I don't think anyone commenting here disagrees with that statement, but this thread isn't about hiring candidates with a bunch of experience. I would assume YoungGunner's 'test' would not be given to to a licensed, 10+ year engineer interviewee.

I would walk out on anyone who gave me something like that mess. Mark the center of the page? Solve this in terms of five? Mark the box on the right....when it is on the left? With that pink marker I told you to bring?

We're going a little hard here.. but I agree with this sentiment. If the guy who was to be my direct supervisor gave me a 'test' like this in an interview, I would assume that accepting the job offer would mean working for someone who would likely be constantly trying to 'test' me with 'gotcha' questions and situations during training. I have no tolerance for that. Straightforward, constructive, clearly communicated direction and feedback are the order of the day. Playing games serves no one.

@YoungGunner I'm not saying that training-by-riddle is how you operate with your new hires, but in my opinion that's the impression your test gives.

I express my previous record of 25 offers - 25 acceptances

Not trying to be combative here, but I submit that the success of your interview process should be measured almost entirely on what percentage of your new hires are still employed by your firm and are effectively contributing to the success of the business 5+ years down the line. Your acceptance rate on offers, respectfully, doesn't mean much to me. Maybe the critical retention rate on your hires is high for you too - if so, in my opinion, that's what you should be advertising. 100% offer acceptance by a bunch of younglings that work for other people now would be a symptom of an ineffective interview process, bad company culture, or both.

 

[geesaman.d]

Those of you who don't understand the power differential, remember:
1) people looking for jobs have *some* reason or motivation to be looking. There is some element of necessity in most cases. At the introductory level the competition is pretty fierce. Student debt looms large.
2) Modern HR / hiring processes are awful. What it takes to get to an interview is typically asinine. Candidates are lied to, their time is wasted, they endure multiple rounds of interviews with irrelevant people, their meticulously prepared resumes and cover letters are ignored and/or discarded. It's practically a game to see how toxically they can treat candidates in order to even be considered. My girlfriend is looking for a job, and one non-profit she was interested in mentioned "honesty" as a core organizational value. From my perspective it looked very promising for both sides. She completed their application questions (took a few hours because there were free response questions and she is a meticulous writer), provided a resume and tidy cover letter message, and finally got to a screen that said "Thank you. You have completed the application process, we will submit it *after* you complete these anonymous exercises in Excel / Word, they should only take you a couple of hours." So if they were truly anonymous, and the quality of her work is not being judged, then they're harvesting free labor from the applicant pool. Or if they weren't truly anonymous, they're lying about that. She threw it all away deleted the application. (In many cases, the job postings aren't even really available - the hypothetical employer just creates them to have candidates respond to "exercises" so they can harvest free written content).

I believe that this is an outcome of letting HR report directly to legal, and legal having a standing order to do whatever they deem necessary to 'protect' the company from various things. But like the IT security team, companies are typically blind to the implicit costs of these myopic perspectives and simply don't realize how treating existing and prospective employees poorly rots the company from both the inside and outside.

I realize that many of you are running small businesses that don't rely on HR software platforms that categorically exploit candidates. But that's what candidates are going through generally and conducting interviews is the candidates one opportunity to see past that into your actual company and departmental culture. Having clear, transparent, focused communication with candidates early in your hiring process should be a huge competitive advantage over the bigger companies who are struggling and/or abusing the hiring system.

 

[RPGs]

Great thread everyone. I love reading all your stories and thoughts.

When I was a fresh grad, I thought I could hack any technical exam. I had convinced myself "well if I've passed the FE and have my BS/MS, that should tell any employer enough." To my horror, my first interview was for an entry level municipal pump engineer role and I was absolutely embarrassed by the technical exam. I felt bad for the government folks who had to sit there and watch me fumble though some kind of pump performance graph I had never seen before. I cant remember exactly what the graph was, but all the questions for it were on the order of "What is the [some nondescript acronym] for this pump? It was a tough experience for me and my ego, but it made sense to me. Obviously I would have been a poor fit for the role and this would be a case where the technical exam probably served the employer's purpose well.

My second interview had zero technical questions and was conducted by an outside business consultant. It was an interesting situation where the company was a design-build firm with a sole proprietor PE and an in-house construction team. The business consultant was doing his best to convince the PE that hiring an EIT (which the PE had never done before) would help grow his business. I could tell the PE was dubious about the prospect. The PE came in for about 10 minutes of the interview to hear my description of my education and MS thesis on offshore foundation soil-structure interaction modeling. He pretty much said, well that's all great but we do residential structural and primarily written reports. He showed me one and asked if I could write these while we were in the car, on the way to inspections. Of course, after just finishing my 190 page MS thesis, I said absolutely--I can do anything. The PE wasn't sold at all and I left feeling pretty put off, but the business consultant called me immediately after I sent a typical follow up email and said he was going to get me the job because he thought my communication skills and personality were outstanding--and he succeeded. That's how I got my start in structural. I still recall fondly the night before my first day at work, reading the US DOH & UD "Residential Structural Design Guide" and googling what a joist was LOL.

A little over 5 years later and after moving to a different firm, I owe everything to that business consultant for getting me my first job. I love structural--it's become my passion. For me, there is no greater satisfaction than seeing something I designed become a real thing. This is something I try to show young engineers--that work in structural can be exciting and gratifying.

I have interviewed 5-6 fresh grad candidates for my current firm and I get the impression that they really do not understand what the day-to-day work looks like for a structural engineer, so I subscribe to taking the time to show them a few of the types of projects we work on. I show them what structural plans look like, what our design software looks like, and one or two examples with hand calcs. After I ask them a few questions about some of the content to see if they understand any of it, I show them photos of some of the amazing things/places I've gotten to see and incredible projects I've participated in to try and see if I can excite them and catch a glimmer of their inner nerd. A couple of the people I've interviewed were knowledgeable on fundamentals in statics and mechanics, with strong communication skills, and I was able to get them offers--all declined for other offers with more money (to my chagrin). Unfortunately, I have yet to see if my interviewing strategy yields a strong engineer, but after reading this thread I believe my method has promise.

 

[KootK]

I was mainly trying to see if what's good for the goose is good for the gander. LOL

Well, in that case, I'll cast my vote for agreeing that what is good for the goose does need to be good for the gander for the testing to be fair. In this sense, we don't even need to agree on what an appropriately analogous power differential reversal need be as a hypothetical. We only need to agree that, whatever that situation would be, the folks currently envisioning quizzes would need to be comfortable taking quizzes themselves. I, personally, would be entirely comfortable with that.

I strongly agree with TLHS's comment that almost any test can be made a perceived "positive" by all parties if it's delivered with an appropriate bedside manner. And I make every attempt to do that. Quick and dirty:

1) I do not present the thing as "this is the sole metric by which we will judge your worth as a human being". I don't stand behind them and cackle like Mr. Burns.

2) I do present the thing as "this is a small part of our assessment of you and is mostly intended as fun way to get to know one another and clarify expectations a bit."

In one of the most impressive acts of emotional maturity that I've ever seen, I once witnessed a guy with a new M.Eng from a good school botch the test entirely and then decide on his own to withdraw his candidacy mid interview. He basically said "I'm clearly not where I thought that I was with respect to the role that we're discussing. I'm going to revisit my current ambitions and, hopefully, take another run at something like this again in the future". I'd be happy to keep interviewing that guy every year from now until forever if he remains interested.