📜 ⬆️ ⬇️

You should not pass or How to behave with the employer, so as not to get this job

Greetings,% USERNAME%!

For many years I have been engaged in the fact that, in various guises (from team lead to head of development department), I lead software development.

And, quite naturally, the hiring of various kinds of developers, testers, analysts is an integral part of my work - here and the compensation of turnover, and the formation of new teams, and the restructuring of existing teams for new projects, etc., etc.
At the same time, I constantly encounter the fact that candidates make the same basic, conceptual mistakes - both before the interview and during it - and significantly reduce their chances for successful completion of the interview. Some of these mistakes are simply the result of ignorance or misunderstanding of some principles that the employer is guided by when hiring, some of the inept adherence to advice from the Internet, which, unfortunately, is often written either too popular or too general.

Those who want to learn more about how a potential leader from the development sees the hiring process and what to do if you do NOT want to get a job - welcome under the cat.

Common causes of misconduct

Analyzing all sorts of mistakes made by applicants before and during the interview, I came to the conclusion that many of them are often due to the fact that the employer and the employee look at different basic principles on some basic principles that strongly influence the construction of their future relationships (hereinafter by “employer” and “employer” I will have in mind not a certain abstract figure, but a specific line manager who is looking for employees - in particular, himself).

Ignorance or reluctance to accept the point of view of the employer is, in my experience, one of the strongest barriers to further cooperation, therefore, before describing the typical errors, I will give a brief list of basic "axioms" that the employer is guided by when searching for new employees.

Axiom 1. The IT labor market is a highly liquid market.

All sorts of magazines, television programs and popular personnel sites constantly insist that there is a constant personnel shortage in the IT market, that finding a job on it is not a problem and that unemployment is not threatened by IT people.

And this is certainly true. But this truth only means that it is difficult for an employer to quickly find a good specialist for little money. And it follows only from this that a good specialist can always quickly find a new job if he reduces the salary. up to a rather high level compared to many other industries, level (yes, imagine, there are many professions where even a good specialist is hard to find IN PRINCIPLE, and compared to them, the ah-ti market is just heavenly on earth).

But what absolutely does NOT follow from this is the fact that an average specialist will quickly find work for big money. It should be especially noted that 80% of all vacancies in the development divisions are a search for “average” specialists, i.e. hands that work, not lead.

Axiom 2. The applicant is a seller in a competitive market

Some people like it, they don’t like it, they agree, they don’t agree - it doesn’t change the essence. The applicant presents his skills and abilities so that the buyer-employer can buy them at a certain price.

Unfortunately, many smart articles form a completely different idea - something like a tender (buyers compete in absentia) or auction (face-to-face competition) relations, when the applicant allegedly publishes his resume offer, and employers start fighting for the right to hire him.

So, neither one nor the other scheme is not applicable in 99% of cases. The fact is that by their nature both of them assume that bidders / auction participants in advance want to receive this particular item of bargaining - a contract or an antique piece. In most cases, the search for workers, the employer has some, but a choice: not now, so in a month the vacancies will be closed. And he understands this perfectly well and is in no hurry, so, excuse me, but you are a seller, only one of many.

Of course, there are exceptions, but these are one-time incidents and the struggle usually goes for employees well, very valuable, one might say systemically.

Axiom 3. The process of hiring employees is a time-consuming procedure with extremely low exhaust.

What does a typical hiring procedure look like from the point of view of a line manager who is looking for an employee? Every day, the personnel officer performs the initial selection of resumes based solely on formal criteria - keywords, age, work experience, etc. - dictated by the manager. As a result, a pack is collected, which the manager also daily or a little less rake in his spare time from other duties, spending on this action from fifteen minutes to half an hour of his time.

With the candidates that seemed interesting to him, the manager asks the personnel officer to arrange a meeting and, in fact, meets at the appointed time. If the personnel officer is not a free agent, the manager misses 10 to 50 resumes per week, depending on the market saturation, the requirements for the job seekers and their own employment. And if you pick up a normal pace and, again, the requirements for candidates are not exotic, you can easily reach a productivity of 5-10 interviews per week.

And now some entertaining arithmetic. For “mid-market” vacancies, the conversion rate — the ratio of those invited to the interviews to those who went to work — is about 10 to 1. At first glance, this is not so small (as much as ten percent), but consider the essence of this figure.

Before the first interview, the manager knows for sure that the probability that this particular applicant is NOT suitable for him is nine out of ten! And as a result - every minute, every joule of energy spent on this applicant with a probability of 90% will be wasted! And, as in any such case, the manager is forming a stereotype “hard - but necessary”, which gives rise to a somewhat specific attitude towards the candidates.

Axiom 4. Do not know how - do not fight

The simplest and most obvious of all axioms, it can be said - worldly wisdom, clothed in the form of a saying, for some reason is constantly forgotten when it comes to the so-called. "Soft skills" - skills that are difficult to monitor and measure, such as communication skills, analytical mindset and learnability.

In clever articles they write all the time that these same skills need to be demonstrated during the interview (and this is true), but for some reason they are silent, that they, like any other skills, need to learn and, if you don’t have any skill, it is better not to mention him, and even more so - not to try to demonstrate.

How to behave in order to NOT get this job

So, with the introductory part done, now let's move on, actually, to some examples of what mistakes personally cause my involuntary antipathy to your candidacy.

Do not specify in the summary desired zv

UPD: There was a lot of controversy on this item, and I gave some explanations at the end of the article.

This error goes against all of the above axioms. No, well, in fact. I have a specific position. She has a specific payroll. No offense, bro, but I look at three or four dozen resumes every week. And I do not want to cut my schedule, coordinate the time of the interview and, in principle, spend my time in order to find out in the end that you do not fit into this fork. Finally, it is just annoying - we are not in the market and not at the tender, I want to immediately and clearly know what price you want for your product — your precious services. My resolution to the personnel officer will still be all the same - to clarify Z. p., Submit a summary for re-viewing. So why lengthen the chain?

Request stupid details before accepting an interview

UPD: There was a lot of controversy on this item, and I gave some explanations at the end of the article.

I don’t know who invented this first, but lately there have been occasionally some candidates who consider it their duty to write something like “to save your and your time, I would like to receive an answer to a few questions”. And then follows a list of absolutely stupid questions, the expediency and relevance of which BEFORE the interview, to put it mildly, is not obvious. Which means that I have to spend my time in order to come up with the correct answers, put them in writing and wait with a sinking heart, would it not deign to ask my answer to find my answers satisfactory.

Therefore, in accordance with Axiom No. 3, I usually save my and his time by sending a resume to the basket.

What questions I definitely consider "stupid" and why:

This list can be continued for a long time, the main thing is to learn the general principle. Questions that can wait until "after the interview" - must wait.

In my practice, the best impression was left by the applicant (whom I accepted as a result and with whom I was more than satisfied), who sent me a letter about the content before the interview: “At the end of the interview, I would like to ask some important questions for me. I send them in advance so that you have time to get acquainted with them. ” And then the list is very similar to the above. But! He obviously made his letter clear that he respects my time and does not require additional efforts from me BEFORE the interview and seeks to increase the effectiveness of our interaction.

Declare that you have a very wide choice / refer to high employment for other interviews / emphasize that this interview is one of many

Even if this is the case, such a statement is a signal that the applicant is trying to use a model of market relations that is different from that set forth in Axiom No. 2. As I wrote above, the employer is usually not ready to interact with the applicant either from the standpoint of the tender or from the standpoint of auction relationships, so this discrepancy between the behavior of the applicant and the employer can not cause (conscious or unconscious) rejection and very unlikely lead to hiring.

And many employers know this very well or feel it, therefore, as soon as such a bell rings, they, in accordance with Axiom No. 3, prefer to “curse” this candidate.

Once again - before the first interview, your value to the employer - even not zero, but a negative value - with a 90% chance he will waste his strength on you. Therefore, before the interview it is better not to fill yourself with a price - it will quite wait for that moment of the offer.

Speak abnormal intonation in a conversation or choose a protective tone.

See axiom №4. Yes, I know that they write everywhere - talk and behave confidently, do not pinch, take an active position. And it's great if you can do it, it's a big plus. Because if you do not know how, it is very easy to make a mistake in choosing the intonation and tone of the conversation. In my practice, I interviewed applicants who:

Conclusion: you do not need to jump above your head, it may happen nezhdanchik. If you do not know how to speak “confidently”, “freely”, “proactively” - just speak as you can, in a normal tone, usual intonation. That is quite enough.

Refuse to demonstrate the required skills on the position

In each full-time position, in addition to "production" skills, there is still a certain set of "soft" skills that every employee of the relevant profession should possess. For example, if the position contains the words “Leader”, “Chief”, “Senior” - then this implies, among other things, that you will have Padawans or any other subordinates whom you will lead, over whom you will dominate and seniority. And, accordingly, it would be nice to have at least some skills in teamwork and team management.

If the position contains the word “Developer” and there is no word “Junior”, then it implies the ability to relatively quickly find a solution to new, previously unresolved tasks. If the position has the word "Analyst", then you want to see the skills of analysis and a certain level of sociability.

Accordingly, when I interview a candidate, I look not only at how well he is proficient in any programming language or software package, but also at how well he is in line with the claimed position from t. the above skills.

If the developer cannot solve a simple algorithmic problem that he had not solved before (really, a simple one), this is bad, but tolerable. But if he refuses to do this after three minutes of fruitless attempts, it almost certainly means aborting the interview. The analyst's reluctance to play in an interview with the customer is similar. The reluctance of the tester to estimate a test case for one or two requirements is the same. The unwillingness of the lead developer to solve a simple conflict between development, testing and analytics - with the same result.

Late for an interview and not warn about it

Last but not least. If you are late for more than 10 minutes - call and warn, especially if it is already visible in advance. Your vis-a-vis may have another meeting end-to-end, he may postpone the implementation of any matter, because only half an hour is left before the interview, etc.

Actually, a small update. Judging by the fact that the article was taken to a minus, and indeed by the content of the comments, the majority of readers did not really understand my main message. And the message is the following: all that is described above is not an attempt to stir up the public on the eternal topic “employee vs employer”, and not even a statement of my thoughts and thoughts on the topic “what would be”. This is, oddly enough, just information for action. Taking it into account when building a relationship with an employer, or not taking it into account, everyone decides for himself.

UDP # 2:
According to the results of a riotous discussion that unfolded in the commentary with a periodic transition to the characterization of my near-minded personality (although they haven’t named the capitalist pig yet, thank you), the mass outrage caused two points, and I consider myself obligated to give some explanation.

Questions before the interview - for some reason this item caused the greatest amount of negativity. I explain. The applicant can and has the right to ask any questions before, during and after the interview. Naturally, it is perfectly normal to clarify some important aspects for you and get answers. But a question and a question that are quite relevant at the time of the interview (when both you and the employer already had a certain impression of each other), cause irritation, being asked before him. I called such questions "stupid." What questions do I call "stupid"? a) Questions formulated in a general way (“What are your projects?”, “What are your technologies?”, “How many people do you have?”) - because common questions imply the same general answers and, in fact, not that do not respond, but they require a fairly detailed response. b) Questions implying in their essence that the decision to hire this employee has already been made (“what is my workplace”).

Naturally, any questions can be asked, but one should not be surprised that some of them may be perceived negatively. And I say this just for information - to follow or not to follow the advice - everyone decides for himself.

Note zp In summary - the second most discussed item.
Yes, there are many injustices.
Yes, the fair price tag dilemma was, is and will be. Moreover, I will say in secret - I also prefer that employers indicate the target z. in vacancies, it would be better if it were immediately the upper limit (oddly enough, I also periodically speak for the applicant), and I would choose from the available options.
No, employers will not do so - if the price is indicated - this is, at best, the average price. Or even the price of "from ...".
No, I will not invite an applicant for an interview without recognizing his target z. - I have a FOT.

Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/285064/

All Articles