Interview preparation

I think that is a very narrow minded attitude - engineers do need personalities and if you don't know why then you are virtually unemployable.

Ian

Reply to
Ian Bell
Loading thread data ...

Someone has taken my comments a little too seriously.

However, I stand by my statement that a "psych test" is completely unnecessary for a technical engineering position. And yes, I'd really walk out if they insisted.

And FWIW if there's one thing I'm not, it unemployable!

Regards,

--
Mark McDougall, Engineer
Virtual Logic Pty Ltd, 
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Mark McDougall

Damn - that looks *really* good, doesn't it! :(

Did I mention I have good documentation skills?

Regards,

--
Mark McDougall, Engineer
Virtual Logic Pty Ltd, 
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Mark McDougall

I disagree too. Maybe a "full blown" psych test would be overkill but if I were to hire an engineer who is supposed to be working in a group, led by a female supervisor, I would like to know that the engineer is someone that can function in a group and share his work and is willing to "take orders" from a woman. Many engineers are introvert people who like to be locked up in their office, work at night and so on. Such a person could be in real trouble when required to work in a team.

Meindert

Reply to
Meindert Sprang

it's a serious subject.

Care to justify that statement?

I said 'vitualy' ;-)

Ian

Reply to
Ian Bell

Mark Dougallson posted: "BubbaGump wrote:

First of all, I think you've misunderstood me somewhat. Admitting one's flaws is totally different to not *volunteering* that you don't know something."

True. It is not dishonest to not mention something.

"If you get asked a direct question that you can't answer, of course you need to admit that you don't know, albeit in a way that suggests you're quite capable of finding out."

You may be "quite capable of finding out" but you can not definitely know that, and stating that you are not going to guarantee that you will succeed in some particular aspect along with stating that you are competent in much of what is to be done in the job may be safer than unfulfilled innuendo if your overconfidence causes a problem after you are hired. However, I am not guaranteeing that BubbaGump's approach to disclosure will succeed in getting someone a job. I have had many good jobs but, at least because I typically secure a job in a country in which I do not even live in when I apply, even when I apply in writing I do not claim to be an expert in everything. E.g. in my application for my current position I wrote: "[..] Distributed real time systems [2] will be important to the European Space Agency [15], and there have been research directions for scheduling real time processes in heterogeneous NoC environments [16], though I confess much of [16] is obsessed with minimizing energy consumption which I have not yet acquired an affinity to though I did remark in [17] that electronic engineers can teach computer scientists and software engineers about energy-efficient data types [18]. I am pleased that [16] reports success in scheduling processes to meet deadlines. However, as with traditional scheduling papers, [16] achieves its success with a static allocation which may make on-board software maintenance difficult several years after launch[38]. [..] [16] Hu, Jingcao and Marculescu, Radu, ``Energy-Aware Communication and Task Scheduling for Network-on-Chip Architectures under Real-Time Constraints'', Design, Automation and Test in Europe (DATE) conference 2004 [..]" The person who became my supervisor as a result of the success of that application said that I showed myself to be "naive" in that paragraph with respect to energy efficiency. However, I did once apply for a menial part time job for an assembly line in a factory making networking components for which I was interviewed. The interviewer was impressed with my supposedly relevant background in "computers" so I pointed out that the factory's modems and LAN cards are not computers. Even so, I got the position.

I did recently have an interview for an alternative to my current position (if I did not get my current position which would start almost three months later), or an interim job before my current position (if I was notified that my current position would start in a few months). I mentioned my preference for my current position and that I would leave soon if I was offered my current position, and I also mentioned that I would need to learn about what I would be developing. I was told that while it would be uncertain whether I would leave in the first three or so months, I would not be allowed to be a developer, but something such as technical support and definitely not "marketing" could be considered. I was also told during the interview to "Stop" volunteering important factors which are not ideal for my own sake. I admit I did not get a position there, and such disclosure may have been a factor, but the company did not actually have a vacancy; I simply applied and was told that it might expand soon pending a contract from a client but the company did not hire anyone anyway as the prospective client's contract did not go ahead on time for me.

Mark Dougallson wrote:

"I'm saying that if you're asked a question on say, RF design issues, then don't follow up your answer with, "BTW I can't program for shit, I can't even spell FPGA, and I've never been able to wrap my head around this 'binary' concept!".

[..]"

That paragraph reminded me of my first class as a foreign student in a Swedish university, in which the class could be given in English or Swedish depending on what would work for the students present. The lecturer asked in English by a show of hands which students understand Swedish. I did not see whether someone sitting behind or beside me raised a hand or not so I asked her in English. She responded in her first clause that she is Swedish and without any further prodding from me she said in her second and next few clauses that she is a continuing student there and that she failed two subjects in the previous year which she is repeating. WTF?

I wish success for BubbaGump.

Regards, Colin Paul Gloster

Reply to
Colin Paul Gloster

That's weird. On issues that don't primarily concern engineering, personality and dress, I prefer the first and you prefer the second.

I don't think an engineer has to be an ass-kisser, but I think he should at least be friendly. Dress I put in the category of ass-kissing.

Reply to
BubbaGump

I wouldn't consider that interview preparation. I'd just consider that being naturally interested in the company. My problem with the interview preparation I see advertised in various sort of resources for job seekers is the way it's presented in such a fixed, unnatural way. Job seekers are told to find information about a company and ask questions in order to get the job. On the contrary, I think job seekers should ask whatever questions they want to find out if the job is right for them (or not if they want to take their chances).

My former headhunters seemed to think I should care what the company's goals are for the future. I couldn't care less what their goals are in this business sense. The closest question I can think of that matters to me is how much of the type of work (embedded, kernel-mode, device-driver-type work) for which I'm looking there is and how much will be available in the future.

I disagree with the idea of selling. I usually think of selling as being insincere in order to trick someone. I like the idea of exchanging information openly and honestly.

Reply to
BubbaGump

My longest face to face interview for a position just exceeded 2 hours. The shortest one was a mere 10 minutes. I got the job on both occasions. Length of interview, in my experience is not an important factor. I have also had phone interviews or email interviews as well leading to on-the-spot decisions at their culmination.

What matters is really ensuring you have the right person for the job and who will be able to fit in with the team. Both the interviewer and the interviewee need to feel they have sufficient evidence to support their decisions about the job, however long that takes. Whether or not the hiring company use personality or psychometric testing is really up to them for their sense of comfort but I feel I am a reasonably good judge to not need them when I am on the hiring side.

--
********************************************************************
Paul E. Bennett ....................
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Paul E. Bennett

Three of my last four jobs I didn't even interview for having got them largely on the strength of networking - this one I did, the interview was not much longer than an hour and I was offered it before I'd even got home.

I was impressed by the guys interviewing me, which was good given that they were my putative line manager and another member of the team I'd be joining - I agree that a *lot* of the process (on both sides!) is about working out if the right chemistry is there.

(I have walked out of an interview after 5 minutes in the past, the position as described to me was clearly not the one the interviewer was looking for, and after he described the lack of original work and career progression all I could say was that it was a waste of his time and mine continuing - fortunately it was only a couple of miles from home!)

When I'm interviewing candidates, I find that the short interviews are either the guys who it's obvious you're going to hire (in which case the rest of the interview slot turns into a de facto discussion of where the role will go and what immediate challenges will need to be overcome), or the ones you're not going to touch with a bargepole. The long interviews are the ones where the candidate's borderline, or you're having to sell the company to someone who's good but perhaps has other irons in the fire ;)

By the time I'd seen a literate and well-presented CV, done a phone interview (30-60 mins ideally at a time when the candidate's relaxed, not standing in a car park!) and spent an hour or two with a candidate I was always sure if I wanted someone in my team or not. I was always careful to make sure good candidates got a lab tour, meeting their future colleagues - and I was careful to note the feedback I got from both sides!

I have rejected candidates who were technically strong because they were the wrong sort of people on a personal level for my team in the past. It was a generally 'fast' team doing a mix of customer-facing work and R&D, with the vast majority of people educated to Masters or Doctoral level and with a research-oriented mindset - "hackers" wouldn't fit in, people who liked looking up answers in the book living by the rules wouldn't fit in, people who weren't prepared to give and accept robust criticism wouldn't fit in. There had to be some kind of "spark" - a candidate had to convince me of the ability to run with ideas, to make things work, and to communicate well within and outside the organisation. I tended to look for people who were perhaps less introverted than the average embedded engineer, "not backward in coming forward". Formal experience was less important to me than creativity and self-disciplined intelligence.

My former employer started using psychometrics for commercial staff and eventually tried them on engineers too. I was only involved with two psychometric tests, in one case it was obvious from the interview that the candidate was too weak to survive anyway; in the other it was a marginal-to-weak-accept whose psych profile came across as lacking confidence and drive.

pete

--
pete@fenelon.com "it made about as much sense as a polythene sandwich"
Reply to
Pete Fenelon

Those sound like team players or, in other words, slightly stupid ass kissers. Can't all you people who were cool in high school just go get physical labor jobs? Leave the computers to the real geeks.

Reply to
BubbaGump

You see, real geeks are too expensive and they are not too many. Cheap, interchangeable and discardable mediocrits - this is what is always in demand.

Vladimir Vassilevsky

DSP and Mixed Signal Design Consultant

formatting link

Reply to
Vladimir Vassilevsky

An employee is a representative of the company they work for. Like it or not, dress (or ass-kissing as you describe it) - or lack thereof - have repercussions beyond your own comfort and/or ideals.

I dress exactly as I like when "holed up" in the office. OTOH I'll dress more appropriately when meeting with a client/customer etc. I don't think it'd do anyone much good if we lost a potential contract because I turned up in my swimmers to a client meeting in their city high-rise office...

Regards,

--
Mark McDougall, Engineer
Virtual Logic Pty Ltd, 
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Mark McDougall

Actually, that reminds me...

Not long out of uni I went for a (software) job in the city. I donned suitable business attire (can't recall if I went as far as a suit jacket that day) but definitely a tie. We were both stunned when my interviewer appeared at the doorway in a T-shirt and (disturbingly short) shorts!

Coming from a 'corporate software' background initially (working in banks and insurance companies) I was "radical" enough to disperse with a tie most days, unless we were scheduled for a visit by the CEO.

Fast-forward a few years and I turn up for my first day as an engineer in (funnily enough) an engineering company. Can't recall if I dared to leave the tie at home that day, but was pleasantly surprised to see a number of engineers opting for jeans and t-shirts. Nirvana!

A few years ago I interviewed for a contract in the city. Not having worn formal attire for a few years - I didn't really have anything suitable - and had to make to with trying to dress up my best casual outfit - worrying that it would harm my chances. Got the job, and later discovered to find that my interviewer was surprised that I didn't turn up in a t-shirt...

Regards,

--
Mark McDougall, Engineer
Virtual Logic Pty Ltd, 
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Mark McDougall

OK, that's your prerogative, but I'll tell you what that attitude

*suggests* to *me*...

It suggests to me that you have little interest in the success or otherwise of the company. That in turn suggests you have no interest in a long-term commitment to the company. No interest in developing a more senior role as your experience affords.

It suggests you're likely to be 'blinkered' on the immediate task at hand, and not even consider The Bigger Picture. You won't be looking at ways to improve the processes, you won't be making suggestions that could potentially improve areas outside your own. You won't be innovative (outside your own problems) and you won't design for the future.

It also suggests that your own agenda will always be priority #1, and hence it's also likely that you're not a team player.

Now please - don't misunderstand me - *I'M NOT SAYING THAT THIS IS THE CASE WITH YOU* - I'm merely explaining what _that_ attitude would suggest to me with little/no other context to go on.

Regards,

--
Mark McDougall, Engineer
Virtual Logic Pty Ltd, 
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Mark McDougall

I'm not eloquent enough to have any hope of changing your mind in a few paragraphs of a newsgroup posting, but I guess I can give some glimpse into my reasoning...

No-one would argue that engineers require not only a thorough technical background but a certain mindset that combines problem-solving skills, attention to detail, capacity for endless self-learning and the willingness to adhere to strict and sometimes tedious processes. Throw some creativity and innovation into the mix, and you have a very capable engineer.

These are all essential, but not sufficient, for an engineer to be a valuable asset to a company. Said engineer needs good communications skills (both written and oral), needs to be a team player, and it certainly helps if he/she doesn't have a freezer full of body parts from former colleagues who rubbed them the wrong way.

But a "psych" test?

I believe that one (or a series of) interviews is sufficient to determine suitability to a degree that is acceptable for a technical engineering position.

Good oral communications skills are blatantly obvious in an interview. Ask to see written documentation. Observe their interaction with multiple interviewers or introductions to potential team members. Questions on past projects tend to uncover alarm bells if done correctly. Non-team-players, for example, tend to have a hard time hiding the fact when the right buttons are pushed.

I'm simply not interested in any company that is going to differentiate me from the next engineer based on what I consider to be largely irrelevant criteria. I'll never be a sales rep but I defy anyone to show how that has affected my work in any way, shape or form. And yes, I am a team player.

Hell, there's a lot more to it, but I'm wasting bandwidth - particularly considering the thread was pretty OT to being with. We'll leave it at that...

Regards,

P.S. To answer Meindert - if *he* is married, then obviously he doesn't have a problem taking orders from a woman! ;)

--
Mark McDougall, Engineer
Virtual Logic Pty Ltd, 
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Mark McDougall

That phrase "team player" needs to go into the garbage. I think of a "team player" as a weak-minded fool who follows whatever the people around him/her say with very little question, in order to gain approval.

I prefer a "dynamic individual", someone who thinks and questions for him/herself yet realizes the trade-offs and imperfections that are inevitable in any large system.

Reply to
BubbaGump

Ugh. These forceful and subjective arguments are too easy to rebut.

A customer is a representative of the human race. Like it or not, dress (or ass-kissing as I describe it) - or lack thereof - have repercussions beyond the customer's own comfort and/or ideals.

Money is not the root of all existence.

Reply to
BubbaGump

It's not my religion, but I think the idea of requiring the approval of others is a bit of an insult to the idea of nirvana. I think of nirvana as transcending everything with inner peace, not outer peace. Outer peace is just worldly bullshit, fleeting and temporary.

Reply to
BubbaGump

Darn. I guess I won't really be protesting anything when I show up without a tie to my next interview. :-) Oh well. I'll think of something else to protest. 'got to keep my force of will in shape.

Reply to
BubbaGump

ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.