Interviewing: Feedback, Exchanges, and Lack of Assumptions

 

     I haven't interviewed a lot in my life in spite of a fairly long, varied, career. Most of the jobs that I have had are situations where they have been coming after me. First post-college job was primarily based on academics. Later jobs were based on direct interactions such that they knew I was well-qualified before they even considered me for a position.

     But, that doesn't mean that I haven't ever had interviews. I have had more interviews that I would consider "bad" than those considered "good". Much of the aspects of "bad" interviews have been assumptions on my part. If something is important to the interviewer, I expect them to ask questions about it such that I can answer. If aspects are not well flushed out, I expect further questions.

     Such is an ideal world. Welcome to the real world.

     Once, I was in an interview when they asked me something that showed total ignorance of the subject about which they were asking the question. What should I do? It is doubtful that the interviewer wanted to be told that they didn't know what they were doing. Yet, an answer must be given -- preferably one that would be satisfactory to the interviewer. In my past history, I choked. I just didn't know how to answer a nonsense question. Perhaps it was a deliberate nonsense question to see how I would deal with it?

     In another situation, I was applying for a technical/programming position within a large company. I passed the preliminary interviews via phone and written tests. On to an in-person interview. Remember, I was applying for a technical/programming position. When I got to the interview, I found that I was being interviewed for a marketing position. The interviewer looked at my resume and didn't know what to ask me -- nor did I know what to ask them. I had some marketing experience (primarily pre-sale support) but had no desire to get a marketing position. How do you tell the company that they mis-matched you?

     Another interview. Largely for management but with technical competency aspects required. We went into the interview and some questions were asked. I gave answers which were, admittedly, not complete as I was not highly experienced in the specific technical areas for which they were probing. The interviewer laughed it off and moved the questions to other technical areas. After the interview, I felt it had gone well. It hadn't. They had "written me off" in the first five or ten minutes and then proceeded to fill time for the rest of the 45 minute interview without ever trying to find out whether I could do the work.

     In yet another interview, I was asked how I had dealt with a specific type of personnel problem. Not only had I not experienced that type of personnel problem but my experiences had been the reverse of the interviewer's questions. Be prepared to answer questions on a "what if" basis. IF you had a particular situation, what would you do?

     It is easy to rant and rail about interviewers and interviewing but, once again, we are dealing with reality.

• Be prepared to tell them the information about yourself that you believe is applicable to the needs of the job -- don't assume they will ask you.
  
  
• If they ask nonsense questions, try to answer based on what you would say if they had asked a reasonable/relevant question. Don't directly tell them the question was nonsense.
  
  
• If they ask questions about which you have no experience, either say so and reply with information about a similar situation or be prepared to delve into a "what if" scenario and how you would deal with it.
  
  
• Probe for feedback -- "Is there something else you would like to know or something you need me to expand upon?"
  
  
• Ask questions. Ask questions about the job, the company, future directions, training, and how you would be evaluated. Unless it is a blind interview (you don't know with what company you are interviewing), research first.

     Above all, remember that an interview is mutual. They want to know if you are suitable for their needs and will be compatible with, and a positive force within, their business environment. You want to find out if it is a situation where your experience and abilities will be valued and, also, an environment in which you can continue to grow your career and yet have a rich personal life. While you should never try to insult an interviewer it should also not be a cause for concern to tell the truth as you see it because this may be an important aspect as to whether the position is for you.

     I have done more interviews than I have had as someone being interviewed. And, although I believe I know how to answer well in an interview, I do better at interviewing than at being interviewed.

     My interviews have primarily focused on the soft skills because, if they have the foundation, the tech skills can be learned. Soft skills are a lot harder to learn and can be quite painful to the teams while the person is learning them. Still, even with technical skills, I focus on what and why rather than how. A great mind is a great hire. A great mind with a great heart is a precious gem. I have hired some great folks who went on to continue to give back.

Gifting: An Intersection of Tastes

 

     What do I get Uncle John for Christmas? What do I get my mother for Mother's Day? What do I get for my significant other as an un-birthday gift? These types of questions often plague people who live in the consumeristic societies. In my more mature years, I prefer my gifts to be ones that help society and the earth rather than something physical that I will have to triage at some point soon in my life. But physical, social, spiritual, or event-oriented there is still a choice to be made.

     Sometimes, a choice is made strictly by budget. There is a pool of X.XX amount of money available for presents. Person A gets allocated Y.YY out of that budget. What is the "most" that can be purchased for that amount? That isn't inherently bad -- unless it is the only criterion that you have for the gift -- and will be a criterion for the gift whether that budget be time or money.  In cases where only budget  is considered, cash or a generic credit card might be better appreciated.

     But, for most, we want to choose a gift for someone. In order to choose a gift for someone that has a good chance of being appreciated and enjoyed, it is necessary to know the person. Do they have any hobbies? Do they already have a collection (and have not been heard moaning "why does everyone keep getting me GGGGG?")? Even more importantly, is there anything they need but cannot, or will not, get for themselves (in this case, there is a good chance that you won't be able to get it either -- but it is still a worthy criterion)? The better you know someone, the greater the likelihood that they will appreciate the gift.

     But, is that the only criterion for tailoring a gift for someone? Certainly, getting someone something that you would want to receive says something. But, it doesn't say much about the person to whom you are giving the gift. And, unless the person knows you especially well, they may not even recognize that you are, indeed, giving something that is a reflection of yourself. Getting a present based on your own needs, and desires, is perhaps better than a budget-only gift but not a lot better.

     An ideal is a gift that is an intersection of tastes. In this way, the gift is something the other person wants, or needs, and it is something that you, yourself, consider to be of value. This intersection moves the gift from the transient occasion to something that can provide a greater bond, or link, between the two of you. That bond might be romantic but, in no way is it limited to such. The bond of mutual appreciation could be within a friendship, business relationship, or within the world of charities.

     A gift that is given with mutuality allows later discussion, an opening for further expansion in the future, or a better understanding all around.