Holding wholesome tech interviews [part 3/7]

Leadership during five common interview scenarios

This article is part of a series on how we can further improve the experience and the outcome of technical interviews, from the side of an interviewer.
For a centralised table of contents for the whole series, check out this Github Gist

of course the technical init() extends the interview init()

In this largest chapter of the series, we’ll unpack some ways of conducting the main part of a technical discussion.

We usually begin straight out with our expanded list of technical questions, covering items from our published job posting, in a specific order of our choosing.

But we can also initiate without enforcing a specific technical topic as well. Instead, our starting point for the actual technical questions can be the very notions that the candidate mentioned, during that specific opening from the interview init().

When those mentioned notions are a 1:1 match with our job opening requirements, we will simply proceed to further expand on them; otherwise, we can explore them for a bit and then transition to our list.

Similar to the benefits of initiating the entire interview a certain way,

this approach of initiating the technical discussion is yet another building block towards making the interview more of a discussion, and less of an interrogation.

Now, going forward.

the cost of an extremely efficient interview tempo

In a normal dialogue (or even in a non technical interview), we would not repeat an identical phrasing structure every single time we ask a question.

That would make us sound kinda like robots, right. 

And yet, because in technical interviews there’s usually a lot of ground to cover and time is rarely on our side, sometimes we tend to slip exactly into something like that.

And it tends to not just be accepted, but almost expected.

I think that even in a golden setting where we have a perfect hiring match (scenario A bellow), the resulting experience of such a dry interview may actually leave sort of a negative aftertaste, as a direct price paid for that rushed / efficient interview tempo.

And this can go exponentially even more so, for the rest of the cases (Scenarios B-E bellow).

So let’s start with that easy scenario where all questions are instantly understood and also met with correct answers. And on further thought, we’ll actually prefix this particular one, to also be applicable for all scenarios.

All scenarios + Scenario A: the candidate has God Mode enabled

When we expect very quick, short answers for a set of questions, it can still feel natural to formulate them as a quick, rapid fire round of bullet point questions & answers.

However. When we do that almost throughout the entirety of an interview, and especially for questions which are not-so-quick to answer, that can very quickly start feeling like a robotic interrogation.

Happily, being the humans that we are, we have a blatantly easy way to ameliorate that potential experience: use normal, natural phrasing.

Instead of only/repeatedly using the same minimal question structuring:

What is notion x, what is notion y, what is notion z?

If the notions are quite common, we can phrase them more naturally like

Have you worked with notion x / do you have any experience with notion y / what can you tell me about notion z?

If we already know the candidate has worked with a specific notion (from their CV), the next sort of question structuring will not just reveal whether they know what a notion is, but also drill into more seniority-nuanced perspectives on it:

How was your experience with / what’s your take on / are you a fan of notion x (and why)?

How did you find notion y / have you faced any challenges using it?

Would you use notion z in future projects and why, or under what scenarios?

If the notions are less common, it is much more fair to treat them just as that. To not ask about them as if they were a main requirement for that role; but instead, to indirectly acknowledge them as being a nice-to-have:

Have you heard of notion x / are you familiar with notion y?

Intertwining these deceivingly valuable yet simple phrasings even once every few “what is notion x”, we can significantly upgrade the overall tone and collegial inertia of a technical interview.

Now onto the next scenarios, which can all happen during the course of the same interview.

Scenario B: they can’t cover some of the questions at all

being pro
For instance, touching technical topics that a candidate is not yet aware of should be noted. But not just noted, and also not harshly penalised even if non verbally so. The idea is not to overlook or minimise any knowledge gaps, but to transparently — yet discretely — take note of them, without making an overly heavy deal about it, or unnecessarily demoralising the candidate.

Besides doing these fundamentals just mentioned, and “just” being professional, we can actually turn this sort of scenarios — usually negatively perceived by both sides — into something positive, or at least into something constructive.

One way of doing this can be that for at least some of the more important interview questions that land without any answer, to briefly explain the core of the notions ourselves…

assisting
...to be mindful of when they do get the notion directly, and to zoom out of that initial explanation and find an analogy when they don’t, to at least get the core of that notion across to them.

But what good can this do?

This is an interview, not a training..

We just met, I am not their career coach..

Ok.
Let’s say we ask around 40 questions. Out of those 40, the candidate is able to fully cover 25. Maybe there’s not enough time in the interview to provide full-on explanations for the remaining 15.

However. If we try to do that at least for some of them, even with just summary explanations, this would not only inform or maybe even enlighten the candidate on-the-spot, but more importantly:

• it would defuse those negative moments in the flow of the interview,
• and it would help keep the candidate’s morale higher during the discussion, while also giving them both a quick breather, as well as a chance at briefly and indirectly evaluating the interviewer in return — which will most often be in retrospect and not in real time, but still just as valuable for the candidate.

And evaluating us, not just technically so.

It will depict our own knowledge, yes. But it will also highlight the way we react to their knowledge gaps and our ability to pass on knowledge, as well as to initiate coaching.

And in case the candidate is nervous (and even highly experienced candidates can get nervous during some interviews), this kind of approach can

• calm them them down,
• help them better listen to our questions,
• stay focalised and on-point with their answers,
• or even prevent them from temporarily blanking out on notions they do not yet master, but which they do know and use.

rewards & surprises
As a bonus, we may also be able to catch some glimpses on how they react to newly found knowledge. We’ll also be able to gauge their degree of curiosity, as well as get a sneak peek (even if shallow) at their ability to process new information and learn more on-the-spot.

The even more fun part is when, as a pleasant surprise, our hint or explanation may

• actually make the candidate realise that they either actually knew the notion, just in different terminology, or,
• that they’ve actually worked with something very similar, and in the end we actually managed to reach common ground on that topic.

This would then be a natural trigger for them to expand on the explanation that we’ve initiated, and maybe to also unpack with further experience around that topic.

And even if this way of reaching an answer may not fully equal the score of a candidate responding with a complete and valid answer directly, it should still weigh more than leaving such a point as a complete blank in our evaluation, not to mention it being much better than a completely missed/failed question for their on-the-spot morale.

But wait, there’s more.

enticing & coaching
This same approach might also have the positive side effect of making the candidate curious to learn more on those explained topics.

So if we feel the curiosity and drive is there, why not go even further to even entice the candidate to learn more on those needed topics?
To almost coach or encourage them, exactly like we would when we would have new colleagues that have already joined our team.

Yes, even if this candidate hasn’t joined our team/department just yet.

This sort of scenario would also allow a window for the candidate to see how, or even more importantly, that we are even open to pedagogy — and yes, even during, or especially in that first-time-meet context.

Moreover, it should provide a window for them to see that we are actually also passionate, hopefully, about those very notions, and to further

sharing & being open
Perhaps besides the actual technical knowledge and concrete facts, we also maybe had very specific experience on them; maybe some fun, and some less fun short stories about those experiences.
Whenever relevant to do so, wrapping an explanation with some real-life (and NDA-safely phrased) project example can help us get a point across much easier.

Perhaps with time, we’ve formed some well-founded opinions, and maybe even so — or especially because of that — we should also be open to the candidate’s very own, potentially even more well-founded opinions.

Perhaps they will provide us with even more light, and/or some useful references or points for exploration, during that very interview.
I’m smiling just thinking about this scenario, where an actual form of consultancy from the side of the candidate can organically begin during the very interview.

This should be actively sought, and celebrated when found; not indirectly avoided, through rigid interview formats.

Scenario C: they don’t provide the absolute exact answer that we are waiting for, but they are close

If a candidate uses a slightly different term or naming scheme for a specific notion, instead of instantly dismissing the answer — like a form password input that only allows for an exact value — in at least some of the more meaningful cases we could instead act more human and spend a bit more energy to try and understand what they meant.
To try and get to a common denominator by asking them to expand on what they mean by that notion, or if applicable, to ask for an example.

We can dedicate the energy to understand their answer, e̶v̶e̶n̶ especially if it’s not in the exact format we are expecting.

Even if the answer is just partially or almost correct, we can still acknowledge it, and then expand it to further educate them on that very fact, instead of completely dismissing the answer from the get-go.

We can still note the extent to which they covered the notion initially, and be transparent with the candidate. The difference is that we are not straight up dismissing their response, simply because they did not reply with exactly what we were expecting.

Scenario D: they don’t understand a question or a topic

Whenever needed, we have to be willing to not just repeat, but also rephrase a question, and provide more context.

It is quite possible they’ve either just misunderstood the question, they are aware of the notion but used to different terminology for it, or — depending on their experience — that they can actually connect the question with some other similar notion/scenario/solution, and can actually return valuable input to the topic.

Moreover, this should also prove to the interviewer that the candidate, even though may not posses an exact needed concept, they have the experience to associate notions with other similar concepts, and work up from that point.

It would technically also be a bonus sneak peek at an ability that they would likely need to use anyway, in day-to-day projects.

bonus tip
When briefly explaining a notion in this kind of context, but especially when we feel it would be even more illustrative, we shouldn’t be afraid to use a whiteboard, pencil and paper, or to share our screen briefly and sketch out a notion or diagram.

Or, if we work in web development for example, to actually tilt our laptop or share our screen and open up a Google Chrome console/inspector, and directly illustrate a question’s context live, then and there.

Besides the notion of a picture being worth a 1000 words, and such live examples worth a 100.000, a more hidden effect that I’ve discovered and understood with time is that this sort of approach will detract a significant amount of tension away from the candidate.

Both of us will point our attention to this temporary 3rd party in our interview, which just so happens to be a tool that can greatly assist on a topic (not to mention a great tool altogether).

As we are virtually stepping out of the interview environment for a bit, to simulate a constructive, shared micro-goal focused environment, this can significantly remove or at least pause any anxiety from the interview, (re)generate a constructive and productive atmosphere, and make the candidate feel even more comfortable.

Scenario E. even though a topic was not known or fully known, we sense interest and excitement for that topic

Whenever applicable, we shouldn’t be afraid of hinting at glimpses of learning paths to our candidate, even during an interview.

When touching topics that the candidate did not already have a good grasp of, if those topics were actually quite critical for that kind of role (also generally in any company, not just for our specific opening), we should feel free to encourage and invite the candidate to learn more on that topic.

If any particularly good learning materials come to our mind, courses, conference talks, or specific industry leaders/writers for that subject, we should recommend them to the candidate.

We should initiate the ramp up early.

Even if the interview does not conclude with a hire, we may be doing the candidate an unmeasurable amount of good, with minimum effort from our part.

A lot of what we’ve been talking about throughout this series will apply to other contexts as well, not just technical interviews. Actively listening and coaching (instead of ignoring or non verbally discouraging), or in a nutshell — being a good human can mean the world for the person in front of us.

• It can be yet an additional decisional point, to help them choose a path to grow.
• It can be yet an additional, even if tiny, positive drop in that glass of experiences, influencing their perception of and experience in that industry.
• It can also help set a good energy for our on-the-spot relationship with them; for how we will kickstart that potential new working relationship, and lastly, for the remaining/passive memory of our initial contact — should our paths not cross again, which is also usually unlikely.

If you’ve made it this far, I commend you!

Next up in chapter 4, we attempt to structure an interview’s information, to unlock 2 more tools for making wholesome technical interviews.