I started working at the II university course. Frankly, to call work, from the current position, the language does not turn, but in spite of this, it was there that I earned the first sn. We created, so to speak, virtual worlds. The demiurges of us did not work out, so after the third year the decision was made to look for a normal job as a programmer. It was then that I learned for the first time what the job interview was. In the beginning, having no experience, many mistakes were made, but in spite of this there were different companies and different results. Opinions about my level differed at times very radically: from a rather strong middling, to a worthless one who knows nothing of a damn, with ambitions and, oh, horror (!), Huge requests for sn. Since then a lot of water has flowed, the bar for which I was told I will never jump, I crossed it a long time ago.
Now I want to share my knowledge about the interviews accumulated during my searches.
At one time I was lucky to learn from many interesting people, among whom was Kopachyov AG, who taught a course in the BSUIR at the POIT department. I note that in the third year it was the only subject in which I had a full summary. Once he voiced such an idea: “Go to various interviews as often as possible”. What for? Then:
1. You can find out what specialists or technologies are needed now and work in this direction;
2. If you annoy you for a long time, they will eventually take you.
3. To determine your level.
4. Raise your current salary.
5. Just for fun.
Following the Minsk interviews, I can divide the interviewers into 3 groups:
1. Manager and Tech.
2. HR and Techie.
3. Psychologist and Techies.
There is a situation when you can only communicate with the manager, but this usually happens in young companies that have not yet developed any specific requirements for applicants.
Interviews are usually divided into 3 parts:
- Talk for life.
- Listen to the company.
- Technical interview.
The sequence of items is not respected and varies depending on the employment of the technician, the phase of the moon or the unfolded kerchief.
As a rule, HR \ Manager \ Psychologist spends conversation for life. They will gently ask: why did you decide to leave the previous job, what did not suit you, what did you expect from the new company, how many currency signs you want, at the same time they will test your knowledge of a foreign language. Separately, I note that there are meticulous HR `s: at one of the interviews I got bogged down, why do I want to leave. Replying twice politely that I want more money and having heard this question for the third time, I was frankly about to write a ticket for an erotic journey on foot, but curiosity overcame, I decided to wait for what happens next. As a result, I can say: I was not disappointed, the performance was superb - the circus left, the clowns went to program.
At a certain stage, in the middle or at the end of the interview, the jobseeker will
told about the company in which he may be happy to work. They tell about the social package, about how the company cares about its employees, paying them 50% of the sports ticket. Young students of Goebbels, will do everything possible to play out the thirst to work in this company, promising golden mountains and sexy secretary (although for some reason no one has offered me such a secretary, but I still hope) and shares of the company that have not yet come out . Usually at this stage, the applicant is offered to ask about the company, ask any questions. Somehow I asked what other interviewees ask questions and was a little surprised how my requirements sound prosaic: a comfortable workplace, interesting projects and a decent salary. People are interested in: the presence of refrigerators, the distance to the nearest places of public catering, overtime pay, coffee maker and soft toilet paper. Of course, all these factors affect the convenience of space, albeit indirectly, but I somehow do not care about the presence or absence of a refrigerator.
Then the techie is connected to the conversation, asking questions on the main specialty - technical. Questions may be different, ranging from tests on pieces of paper, apparently checking how well the applicant is able to sit on the Internet, on rsdn `s, brainbench` s (sometimes it becomes interesting when they start to test for knowledge of padonkafskovskogo lexicon or offer pictures where necessary be able to distinguish between memes) and ending with fairly literate questions whose experience comes with age and work experience. Sometimes there are citizens with a pronounced overestimated self-conceit, a sort of fellows who play in the American action movies sprinkling with saliva sergeants. Praise for the conduct, but I didn’t work under the control of such thugs, because I have a feeling that the relationship will be one of a kind: I’m the boss - you are a goof coder, and in general you learn how to be a jerk. At the same time, the “jerk” can be older, smarter, more intelligent and have more certificates, but now he is a job seeker, that says it all.
Based on my modest experience, I share technical interviews according to the following criteria:
- hard - the applicant will learn everything about this technology, i.p., up to: how long the tester, who tested this feature.
- competent - the interviewer is interested in how much the applicant knows about this or that technology, without going to extremes. In my opinion - the most worthy approach for an interview. Both sides can demonstrate their knowledge and skills. In the course of the questions, the applicant can make sure that the person who, in the future, will probably lead them is not a tyrant and is technically savvy enough to be able to address him as a result of a given situation. The interviewee will be able to learn about the interviewee how quickly he learns or owns one or another depth of knowledge.
- lungs - arise either with the inexperience of the interviewers, or with their unwillingness to communicate especially. “Someone came and came, what the hell should I communicate with him ?! I have a deadline tomorrow! Let Vasya go to interview, he broke me off half an hour ago in CS! ”
Many companies lose talented people due to the inexperience of their employees conducting interviews. Below are a number of drawbacks that negatively affect the choice of workplace during the interview:
- Carefulness managers. It is necessary to be able to carry on a conversation, without asking the same questions several times. If the interviewee cannot extract the necessary information from the applicant, send the interviewer to refresher courses or let him look for another place to work.
- Rudeness (the so-called sergeant syndrome). Coming in for an interview, you should not show the company’s coolness by neglecting the applicant: you shouldn’t fall apart in a chair (why not put your feet on the table?), Don’t pretend to be offended girl (the applicant is not interested in blowing lips because of the unresolved solitaire) , do not try to show how busy the interviewers are, buried in the laptop screen (is it really embarrassing to look the applicant in the eyes ?!). If someone conducting the interview considers that having a number of certificates or being in some
UG UserGroup, this makes him incredibly cool, let him go to an interview with another company.
- Questions on the leaflet. If someone wants to know if the applicant is sitting on the Internet, you should ask him about it directly, and not slip a task from the category “Output 100 times I love this company without using cycles or goto”. The same is true of Brainbench, I hope that someday people will realize that popular questions from popular resources are not something unique and only show the absence of that part of the brain that is responsible for the ability to invent. It also speaks of the inability to pull out the necessary information from the interlocutor, poor interpersonal skills.
- Test. I admit honestly, in my youth I did a test task, now I won’t think about it. Why? Everything is very simple: the applicant spends his time, which costs money or which he can spend for his close people, very rarely a test task can take less than 30 hours, and for some reason no one offers to pay for it. In my sarcastic question, how about paying for a test, in one company they looked at me as a sick and insane moral monster who had redeemed their holy foundations. Moreover, there is a rather slippery moment, no one can guarantee that it was the applicant who did the test, and not his friend Vasily from the neighboring office. For some reason, offering a test task, this factor is not taken into account, it is in vain. Again, we return to the inability to pull information and weak sociability.
- Questions about banknotes by e-mail. Understanding perfectly that it is a pity for someone to waste their time if a person wants decent money, but it is worth saving face if you have a bad game. To be interested how much a person wants in the letter - moveton.
- Psychological tests. Insanity purest water, self-taught home psychologists decide whether a particular person is suitable for the company. It’s just disgusting to watch how having read the basic course of psychology, someone is trying to steer. The interlocutor should not notice that he is being tested for psychological stability or provoked for any behavior in order to assess his actions.
- Call back. The most piquant situation when the applicant is told to call back. Apparently, these managers from the collective farm, where the hay itself ran for the cow. Praise to reason, the opposite is true when the applicant is called back. Frankly, the call is more valuable than the letter. Silence (do not write \ do not call) - frank rudeness and fat minus the company's reputation, even if a person does not fit now, in time he may be very necessary. Do not be offended by showing their neglect. Also, do not delay with the call, as a rule, the applicant has a number of proposals (some already have offers as soon as they start thinking about a change of job), so count on charm and on the fact that someone is someone in this running century will wait, obviously not worth it.
- The ability to speak and listen to the interlocutor. A very necessary skill is to speak the same language with the applicant. Someone speech abounds with the presence of anglicisms, someone considers himself steeper than the coolest eggs, someone has a cat at home diarrhea. Despite everything, people need to be able to listen, understand and be able to talk with them.
It is worth noting that I only once encountered a competent interview, I will not organize PR of this company, I will only note that Olga Nareiko and Alexey Malkov conducted the interviews. Of course, the interview did not pass without some rough edges, but recalling the events of almost three years ago, I still had a positive feeling about that interview.
Maybe we will ever live to see the time when most companies treat their employees, as described by J. Spolsky, and there will be cool job interviews and work.
Frames decide everything. ©