Yeah, that's true, you usually have to limit yourself to 1-2 questions (except on the behavioral interview(s), or when you knock a technical interview out of the park).
I have to admit that I never liked the 1-10 question, though. 1-10 is a huge range, and worse, this question lends itself to unexamined, generalized answers. Exampl…
Yeah, that's true, you usually have to limit yourself to 1-2 questions (except on the behavioral interview(s), or when you knock a technical interview out of the park).
I have to admit that I never liked the 1-10 question, though. 1-10 is a huge range, and worse, this question lends itself to unexamined, generalized answers. Example:
"I give it a 9, because the people are great!"
"Why 9 and not 10?"
"umm.... I guess the technical debt?" [You have learned absolutely nothing.]
"How frequently do you collaborate with all those great people?"
"Oh... I think I did once last year. But they're all very nice people." [This is one data point that indicates collaboration is rare. Check with others to confirm this.]
"Tell me about a time" questions force the person to self-examine and provide evidence, instead of going off their gut instinct.
Sure, folks can fabricate a story, but it's even easier to fabricate a number. I agree that it's hard to fake excitement, but you can gauge excitement just as easily when they're telling a story as when they're explaining a number.
You can compare the number, even if made up, with the person's excitement while they tell you the number. And if they're trying to make it rosier, you can smell it.
Everyone can tell a story about a time when things worked great, even if the reality is they usually don't. You then can't trust the answer and it's hard to smell bullshit.
Hi Gui!
Yeah, that's true, you usually have to limit yourself to 1-2 questions (except on the behavioral interview(s), or when you knock a technical interview out of the park).
I have to admit that I never liked the 1-10 question, though. 1-10 is a huge range, and worse, this question lends itself to unexamined, generalized answers. Example:
"I give it a 9, because the people are great!"
"Why 9 and not 10?"
"umm.... I guess the technical debt?" [You have learned absolutely nothing.]
"How frequently do you collaborate with all those great people?"
"Oh... I think I did once last year. But they're all very nice people." [This is one data point that indicates collaboration is rare. Check with others to confirm this.]
"Tell me about a time" questions force the person to self-examine and provide evidence, instead of going off their gut instinct.
Folks can fabricate/exaggerate/game the "tell me about a time" answer, but it's very hard to fake excitement.
You can tell if the 9 answer is really a 9 or a 7 plus some amount of salesmamship, and in both cases that gives you a lot of signal.
Sure, folks can fabricate a story, but it's even easier to fabricate a number. I agree that it's hard to fake excitement, but you can gauge excitement just as easily when they're telling a story as when they're explaining a number.
You can compare the number, even if made up, with the person's excitement while they tell you the number. And if they're trying to make it rosier, you can smell it.
Everyone can tell a story about a time when things worked great, even if the reality is they usually don't. You then can't trust the answer and it's hard to smell bullshit.