The process of quality assurance is not only following standards, using instructions and common patterns. Quality begins with people working with you. Popular wisdom says: "Clean not where cleaned, and where not litter." Therefore, it is very important to have specialists in the team who would initially work correctly and who would not have to “take out the garbage”.

But there is a nuance!

Finding employees is akin to a market where an employee tries to sell himself, and a company buys an employee. At the same time, it is important that both sides play the right game, as a result of which everyone could get what he wants. Therefore, the quality of HR, QA, technical specialists and consultants conducting interviews is very important, because any of their mistakes can lead to a storm of negative emotions of the candidate, and a rumor about the lack of professionalism of the interviewers will have a bad effect on the image of the company as a whole.

How to conduct an interview and how to interview , how to improve or improve the process of conducting an interview, you will learn by reading the following materials:

• Features of the interview or interview as a game
• The main mistakes during the interview

And for those who want to test their knowledge before a real interview, we offer a free service: "Virtual interview"

Interviewing specialists or interviewing like a game

"What is our life? - The game," the ability to lead which helps us to finish school well, choose, go to university, get a diploma, get an interesting job, find a place in life and be a successful person.

Immediately make a reservation - I am not a professional psychologist, and the following observations and analysis are more of the nature of personal experience gained during the passage and interviews in IT. Also, for completeness, I will add that I work in the field of software testing, so interviews in other areas may have minor differences. Another important point is that in an interview, in addition to the ability to play, real technical knowledge, competence and experience are important. A competent game can only strengthen or weaken your position. This article focuses only on the element of the game, considering the remaining conditions to be “sufficient” for the successful outcome of the game (the applicant is hired for a target position with labor compensation satisfying his requests).

The following definitions are used in the text:

• "Game" - taken from game theory ( A game is a process in which two or more parties are involved leading the struggle for the realization of their interests. Each of the parties has its own goal and uses a certain strategy that can lead to winning or losing - depending from the behavior of other players. )
• "Strategy" - see the definition of the game.
• "Turn" - the action carried out by the player in the framework of the adopted strategy.

The outline of the presentation will be something like this:

1. Who participates in the interview. Their strategies and goals. (Players)
2. What are the positions (situations)
3. Ideal Interview (Simple Solution)
4. What are the deviations and why they arise (Problems)
5. How mutually beneficial to hold an interview for both parties (Difficult decision)
6. What strategies are most beneficial to the applicant

So, let's start ... As always, it is best to start any analysis with a description of position, alignment of forces, etc.

To the top

1. Who participates in the interview. Their strategies, moves and goals. (Players)

Interview game team. The interviews that I was lucky to conduct and pass were played by the following composition:

• Applicant (required)
• HR representative (99% of cases)
• Technicians (80% of cases)
• Your planned boss (100% of cases)
• the Big Boss - he is the director, or the investor (10% of cases, only for an interview at key positions in the company)

Now consider the strategies, moves and goals of each participant in more detail. Here I want to note that people are different, so I will list only the main moves of the players and their main goals. Strategies for some parties are unknown to me. The relevance of goals for a particular player determines his strategy. When a player often changes his strategy, and this is noticed by other players, they have the impression that the player who changes strategies “cheats” and his attitude to him changes accordingly - disappears, or the desire to play in one team increases.

• Applicant Objectives :
  • Get a job in the company - I think it makes no sense to explain. This goal is always opened by the applicant for an interview.
  • Get an idea of ​​the company - getting information about people, device, relationships, leadership style, social package, company office. It can both exist separately and complement the goal of “getting a job” by controlling it. Those. if the presentation is not very good - the goal of “getting a job” disappears. And vice versa, if “getting a job” was a secondary goal, then after reaching “get a glimpse” its priority may increase dramatically.
  • To find out the amount of compensation offered by the company to specialists of its level is the same as the previous goal, but focuses exclusively on the financial side. Also can control "get a job." gets on well with “get an idea of ​​the company”.
  • Find out the technical level of the company's specialists - this goal is never revealed by the applicant. It can only be pursued by a very experienced applicant. The motives behind this goal can be different: working for competitors, collecting information for organizing their own business, head hunting, and what else. If the applicant pursues this goal, then there is a double game. On the surface, the goal is to "get a job" and demonstrate a degraded resume and artificially lowered skills. In fact, everything happens the other way around - on the questions and reactions to the answers, there is an assessment by the applicant.
  • Getting the experience of passing the interview is sometimes the only goal of the applicant. The atmosphere of the interview is different from everyday, so the applicant may be nervous, but in order to show himself from the best side, confidence and calmness are necessary. This is in a sense a stress test. The goal is never shown in the open.
  • To find out clear gaps in knowledge and skills - this goal can be both unique and organically complement the rest. As well as the previous one, it is not shown in the open. Mainly pursuing this goal, the applicant plays a "cool special" - so he will be asked many more questions.
• Candidate Strategies :
  • I want to find at least some kind of work - basically, this strategy is involuntarily used by those applicants who are in a difficult financial situation for some reason, mainly aiming to get a job. This strategy does not allow to achieve the goal, i.e. losing to the applicant in almost 100% of cases. Playing in this way, the applicant completely entrusts the initiative to the opponent, hoping his (their) strategy is to accept the applicant. This creates the overall impression that the “loser” came to the interview, i.e. a player who does not get upset if he loses, and recruiting “losers” to work is a very bad strategy. Also, they are unlikely to be told in detail about the company and ask serious questions. So the outcome is predictable. Favor can come only if the company is in a very bad position (the strategy to “recruit at least someone”) or there are a lot of such “losers” in it, which means it is even worse in a bad position, or it will be in it in the near future.
  • I want to work in your company - this strategy also has the obvious goal of getting a job. She also encourages opponents (they already work for this company, don’t they?) Slightly play along with the applicant (yes, we have a very good company ...). This strategy can be used without causing suspicion in the case of a favorable positioning of the company relative to competitors. And only if the applicant can explain what the company's advantages over its competitors are for him. The question will be - do not doubt it. The answers may be something like this: close to home, the popular Google brand that everyone knows, or a good social package (working auto, for example), career prospects (see the subjective note below). If the applicant is going to choose this strategy - it is worth thinking in advance all the arguments. They must be either true or extremely believable.
  • I am an expert - a strategy can be used in case of confidence in one's own knowledge and skills. During the game, the applicant shows that he is aware of the situation in the labor market, knows his value and does not agree to work for a penny. Must be willing to confirm this from the technical side. Usually, there are "there is a good place" moves, or "there are other offers", or even with both.
  • I am a cool specialist - the difference from the previous strategy is that the applicant wants to get a salary greater than the average position, and probably more than his current position. This is such a hardcore version of "specialist". Knowledge and skills, of course, need even more.
• Applicant moves :
  • Move: I want to get a specific position - this is a move (not an independent strategy), using which the applicant, within the framework of his chosen strategy, reminds his opponents that he claims a specific position. The course shows the ambition, confidence and career orientation of the applicant. It is done either by career seekers (involuntarily), or if the applicant believes that the company welcomes careerism. It causes some dissonance with the strategies “I want to work in your company” and “I want to find a job”. It is combined with the "specialist" and goes well with the "cool specialist."
  • Progress: I now have a good place - it is played when discussing a salary or a social package. At that stage when the applicant has already interested the employer. Provokes the employer to improve the current offer. This is a small trump card, but you need to play carefully, having thought out in advance what to answer the question about the reasons for leaving this good place. Combined with the strategies of "specialist" and "cool specialist." May have nothing to do with the real state of things.
  • Progress: I have other interesting offers - like the previous one, it is played when bidding for the RFP or social package. Is the main asset of the applicant. It provokes the employer to improve the current offer to the level of "other offers". It is played out cautiously (you can deviate slightly here to "I want to work in your company", for example like this: "..., but I still would like to work for you, because ..., however, I have certain financial responsibilities. ..., therefore I will be forced to accept the most interesting proposal from the financial side ". The financial side is the size of the salary or savings from the social package). It is combined with "specialist" and "cool specialist." May have nothing to do with the real state of things.

By the way, about the "career growth" in the company : the longer I live, the more I become convinced that this is a myth invented by HR in order to create an impression of stability, predictability and solidity of the company. Basically - for candidates with little experience. In fact, either the person himself is engaged in a career - and in this case it is easier to build it moving between companies and positions, accumulating the necessary experience - or he doesn’t work in a career and there is no difference where and how he works. If you are trying to bring the prospects for "career growth" as an argument in favor of the company, and you have 4 or more years of experience behind you, remove the noodles from your ears and draw conclusions. I emphasize - this is a subjective observation. Perhaps there are companies where the predicted "career growth" really exists above the steps "student" and "experienced", they just have not met me. In the most honest (from my point of view) companies, there was no talk about career growth at all.

• • HR objectives :
    • To recruit a sociable employee to the company - after all, work with him then on HR as well as on other colleagues.
    • To recruit a stable employee to a company that corresponds to a vacant position - here HR finds out what position the applicant is seeking and experiencing a predisposition and whether in the near future they correspond to the open positions and company profile. HR turnover goes to minus HR, so they try to minimize it already at this stage.
    • Recruiting an employee without social pathologies into a company is also the responsibility of HR. In advanced companies, psychologists sit on HR positions.
  • HR moves :
    • Ha-ha or tell about yourself - non-binding chatter, which can begin with a sentence to tell about something or someone. In the course of the course, an assessment of sociability and social adequacy is taking place.
    • Comfortable conditions - a move to determine the reasons that will force the applicant to move to a new place. HR believes that it played well, if the previous company of the applicant didn’t satisfy his needs much, and the company in which he is currently undergoing the interview satisfies with a margin. Ideally combined with the strategy of the applicant "I want to work in your company."
    • Career - here HR finds out what position the applicant seeks and feels susceptible to and whether in the near future correspond to the open positions and company profile. HR staff turnover is not needed. Usually the game begins with a request to tell about your plans, or "to present the situation in N years ...".

• • Objectives of technical specialists :
    • Recruit a competent employee in the company - so that you can learn from whom and with whom you can make interesting projects. Key points - knowledge of unique technologies, experience in unique areas, etc.
    • Not recruiting an employee more competently is typical for specialists whose authority is currently undermined or has not yet stabilized. Especially important in high-bureaucratic organizations.
    • To recruit a "student" to perform routine work is the opposite of the desire to take on a "cool specialist."
    • Show your own coolness - i.e. Right at the interview, determine the “alpha leader” in the group so that the question is not raised later. It overlaps with the reluctance to recruit a competent employee, as authority will be challenged and the status of "guru" may be lost.
    • Weed out incompetent and unpromising applicants - here, like, everything is clear. In contrast to the preceding paragraph, the interests of the company are pursued, not personal ambitions. Unlike the first point - the absence of failures in areas critical for the project / company.
  • The moves of technical specialists :
    • Did you do that? - during the course of the process, the specialist digs out selectively, or to each item of the summary that he is familiar with. This course aims to verify the accuracy of the resume, as well as find out the level of knowledge and skills required for the vacant position.
    • How did you do it? - the specialist asks questions on the resume items with which he is not familiar (but, perhaps, they are needed for the vacant position) and draws conclusions about the competence of the applicant on the basis of the logic and coherence of his answers. It is also played to find out the answers to urgent questions of interest. For example - how to solve a problem on the current project. The benefit of the situation for the specialist is that he does not need to give the "right"
    • How would you do it? - The specialist asks questions, or imaginary situations in which the candidate has no experience according to the summary, but these tasks will need to be solved in a vacant position. The specialist has experience in solving these issues. The candidate's ability to improvise and the right approach to solving new problems is assessed.
    • Have you ever done it? - the course is similar to "you did it exactly?", but the points go which are not in the summary, but in which the specialist feels most confident. The move is made in order to "break off" the applicant. Either the specialist pursues the goal of “determining the alpha leader”, or is trying to knock off too much pathos from the candidate (my opinion: an interview for this is not a very suitable place). Sometimes a specialist disguises this move as "how would you do it?". If the expert began this move, he will continue it until he finds a place where he wins (- Well, what are you doing! How can you not know this! ..). On this basis, as well as on the overall length of the move, "have you ever done this?" can be distinguished from "how would you do it?".

• • Objectives of the Chief (we will assume that he is fully or partially responsible for the budget from which the salary of the employee will be taken) :
    • Get a problem-free employee - i.e. one that will do the job without creating unnecessary problems — the dream of any boss.
    • Recruit an employee for the minimum suitable salary - if the boss receives any "bonus" for saving the costs of salaries for subordinates.
    • Take a managed and responsible employee - again, no one needs an employee challenging authority and hierarchy, or one who is not responsible for the consequences of their actions.
    • To recruit a stable employee - moving employees from a project to a project in order to maintain interest in working within one company is a big headache for any department head. Finding good candidates is difficult, keeping it is even more difficult.
    • It’s possible to make a decision on how to bring it up.
    • Minimize communication problems with the employee - after all, then work with him. This is also the same with HR.
  • Head moves :
    • Who is responsible for checking vacancy position.
    • Describe the process - an expanded version of the previous move. But you need to know how to work.
    • also see all technical moves and HR.

• The goals of the Big Boss are :
  • It is 100% aware of what the person has been given. their point of view) A comfortable level for managers.
  • To determine the applicant’s usefulness of the company, it’s important that key personnel. Therefore, it is important that you apply for a long term.
  • Itis more than a cannon .
• The Big Boss moves :
  • Helping out the company’s goals . The goal is to evaluate the situation.
  • Let's imagine your budget - in the course of the course the applicant is asked to describe typical expenses. The goal is to determine a comfortable level of salary for it. If the candidate for the position agrees to this game - most likely he will only have a "comfortable level". The applicant can bend the situation a little in his direction by playing the moves "there are other offers" and "there is a good place".
  • technical and technical experts.

To the top

2. What are the positions (Situations)

So, we decided on the players, now let's analyze the arena where the game takes place. From the recruitment of players (figures), the starting position is important. It can, of course, be advantageous for one of the parties, or for all parties. But even a good position, it’s not a good position. If you’re playing out losing the game, you can decide the outcome of your favor.

An acquaintance of mine said that the examples of the above situations are rather arbitrary and are not found in life in their pure form, and therefore they are useless - I will explain why I chose them as an example. Any situation is much more difficult than can be stated here. Moreover, it is impossible to consider all possible variety of situations. But any situation can be presented as a superposition of “archetypal” situations to some coefficients of specific weight in real circumstances. In other words, the proposed situations represent a basis in which many real situations can be decomposed. And act accordingly. Moreover, the various participants in the game may differently represent the starting position (communication problems). The result will be quite a messy game that can greatly embarrass those who do not know from its premises.

I would single out several "archetypal" or "basic" situations:

• An employee is urgently searched for - a situation when an employee needs to be recruited urgently (for example, within a week), and there are strict and fairly high requirements for skills. This situation often arises when you need to dial a *** in a new "burning" project. The applicant here is in a winning position, since his competition is significantly less than normal (limited by the time interval). If we are talking about an experienced specialist, then, most likely, there is no competition at all and the game is reduced to a game for the size of the RFP. This is a separate game, and, in short, the one who first calls the intended RFP loses it, i.e. revealed. On the other hand, its results strongly depend on how all the interviews were played out.
• Looking for an employee / boss for a pre-failure project. Often this is a low salary. For various purposes, for example, One way or another, the project is “political”, since previously known failed projects.
• A competent specialist is slowly looking for someone who will increase the com *** *** - initially not a very advantageous deal for the applicant, since the competition is very high in relation to other layouts. On the other hand, a gain can turn into years of fruitful work, bringing pleasure, as well as a solid salary. Therefore, in this case, the applicant should honestly play to the fullest.
• Anyway (now) we will not take it - the situation when, for political or objective reasons, the outcome has already been decided, but the applicant was still invited to an interview. Suppose the situation suddenly changed and did not have time to inform the applicant.
• All the same, take - the opposite of the previous situation. I’m not interested in play here.
• Looking for a "student" - (lower than average) salary.

The behavior of each player. He can hide his real strategy and goals. However, players are trying to make. Since the The applicant is to “uncover” the applicant.

• • Urgently looking for an employee :
    • HR - in this case. It will only screen out completely inappropriate applicants. The position matching criterion will be very flexible. Sociability will be considered only if it is critical for the position / project. This is a reasonable compromise.
    • Technical specialists- can use any moves. What are your goals? If this is you, then I recommend limiting to the "How did you do it?" and "Did you do that?" and, as is most appropriate for all parties in this situation. You must be able to make the most of your knowledge and experience. It is thoroughly. I’m not going to advise you to get a leader,“If you’ve ever done this?”.
    • He is most urgently needed. If this is you, then believe me, you do not have much choice. It is the "Resistance of the applicant."
    • Big Boss the - will most likely to, IT will of the BE Decided right from the door Whether the Applicant take a will of Decision, and the then of He will of a His Decision check an hour and a will of the half and to still not change IT. If you are a job seeker, make an impression immediately. If you are a boss - :) Repeat the game, "playing moves" determine the goal "and" imagine the budget. It will make it possible for you to move on. The special specialist or specialist specialist.
    • Job seeker- strategy can be any. Consider - he doesn’t know what the situation is. Most profitable strategy "cool spec." However, if the applicant will lose. It has already been a reliable stable place. It is not necessary to receive a "bonus". It creates the impression of a loser on the applicant. Nobody wants to work with losers. Therefore, it’s better to play "I want to work in your company", let’s company and no. You can play the option "I want a specific position"if you have personal ambitions or need specific experience. However, the applicant will lose.

    Characteristic features of the situation:

    • Like: How can you go to work?
    • Questions like:
    • Tests for stress resistance.
  • Looking for a scapegoat :
    • HR will most likely receive formal instructions.
    • Technical specialists are unlikely to be present.
    • The boss is probably the Big Boss himself. Or a manager who wants to leave the project. There will be questions on the position and GP. This is a logical, cost of failed projects should not be minimal.
    • the Big Boss - see above.
    • Applicant - as usual, any strategy. If this is you - and you somehow identified the situation as a scapegoat, it is better to choose a "tough specialist" and wait for failure. The work, if you get it, is unlikely to bring you pleasure, and if you agree to take it (the situation is so bad), at least you will be able to get decent compensation. If you are in such a position, avoid any dependence on the employer. Do not take loans, material obligations, etc. If you are trying to hang something - immediately resign. Again, if you are sufficiently enterprising and have the necessary experience, strength and connections to raise the project, or the direction that is being interviewed - you can take the bull by the horns and, if successful, deservedly become a key employee in the company. In no case should you play "any work", otherwise you can easily win the battle, get a place, but lose the war, get a terrible job.

    Characteristic signs of the situation:

    • Questions like: Attitude to uninteresting work?
    • Questions like: Minimum salary for which you agree to work?
    • The lack of technical experts in the interview.
    • Few details on the project.
    • Avoiding direct questions.

• • Slowly looking for a competent specialist who will increase the *** *** in :
    • HR - will play all his moves with full dedication. If it is you - it makes sense in this case. You need to choose carefully.
    • Technical specialists are independent experts, so they play about the same in all cases (see the situation "an employee is urgently needed"). However, in this position, their opinion should be decisive, in contrast to the “urgently needed employee”, where the determining opinion is that of the boss. Therefore, if it is you, you can play “did you do it?”, “How did you do it?”, “How would you do it?” and only if you are aware of why you need it - in "have you ever done it?".
    • Chief - will do a lot of moves, and also with full dedication. In the end, he is not in a hurry and the main thing is to find and take a good candidate. If you are the boss, it’s best to position your opinion about the candidate along with the technical specialists. Here, in addition to technical issues, it is important that the employee is compatible with the existing team. A sex bomb in a mini can easily split, or it can greatly distract the male team from work, even if it knows Java very well.
    • the Big Boss - most likely will also be at the interview. And he will play all the moves too. The first impression here is not as important as a balanced approach. If you are a job seeker, do not rush, exude confidence. In this case, you need to show your own stability. If you are a boss, rate the comfortable level of ZP and the applicant's ambitions and, if he is right for you, offer more.
    • Applicant - as usual, any strategy. If this is you - and you correctly identified this alignment of forces - play a little bit of “I want to work in this company” and “specialist”. An aggressive game of "cool special" is unlikely to lead to success. “I agree to any work”, again, you should not play - the loser is unlikely to be taken to a permanent composition.

    Characteristic features of the situation:

    • Many diverse issues.
    • A lot of interviewers.
    • Oo-oo-o-ry extended interview time (up to 6-8 hours).
    • Perhaps an interview in several rounds, posted on different days and locations.
    • Very detailed answers to the questions of the applicant.

• • Anyway (now) do not take :

    First a small remark. There are 2 options - one farsighted from the point of view of the company, the second - no. In the far-sighted version, an employee will be interviewed based on the previous option "a competent specialist is needed." In the short-sighted version of the interview is "empty", that is, there is already a negative decision on the offer of a position (for example, a friend or relative of the boss claims the same place, but the boss does not want to know that the place was given ). Below we will look at the 2nd option, since we need to distinguish it and save our time.

    • HR - most likely will play with full dedication, as in the previous version, if not up to date with the game boss. Limited to a formal game, if in the know.
    • Technical specialists - They also do not know (well, maybe only some of the familiar chief). They will play as well as in the "urgently needed employee." However, in this position their opinion will not play a decisive role. If this is you - the recommendations are the same.
    • The boss is the "interview" on his conscience. The recommendations here are useless.
    • the Big Boss is either aware or not, but most likely is missing. May go to meet formally, if in the know.
    • Applicant - as usual, any strategy. If it is you - and you have correctly defined this alignment of forces - relax, say goodbye mentally to the position and try to spend time with benefit, getting an idea of ​​the company "for the future". If you are not interested in the company, you can politely end the conversation. I do not advise to be rude - it's like spitting in the well :)

    Characteristic features of the situation:

    • The desire to "fill up" the applicant left questions on non-project technologies (especially the "head").
    • General confusion of the interview.
    • Low interest by the applicant as a specialist.
    • Low attention to answers to questions.
    • Concentration on what the applicant does NOT KNOW instead of getting an idea of ​​what he KNOWS.

• Looking for a "student" :
  • HR - plays all his moves. In many ways, this is his interview. The young specialist is still very vague about what he wants so his stability is difficult to determine. Adequacy, sociability, and absence of pathologies are mainly determined. Emphasis on openness and interpersonal skills. The idea is to filter out candidates with qualifications that exceed the required for the position.
  • Technical specialists - Play as usual. They can “do you ever do this?” Because an inexperienced employee is simply (even involuntarily) crushed by intellect. However, this does not affect their opinion of the applicant, but it does affect the applicant's impressions. Recommendations: the moves "Did you do this?" and "How did you do it?". Do not pursue the goal of "taking a specialist" if it is clear that the applicant is a typical "student" - this will greatly undermine the candidate's self-esteem. And do not do the opposite - the applicant reasonably decides that he is being bullied.
  • The boss - plays the same way as the specialists, plus the emphasis on manageability and responsibility.
  • the Big Boss - he is probably not here.
  • Applicant - as usual, any party. If it is you, you are a “student”, and you have correctly defined this alignment of forces - play “I want to work in this company”. You should not play the "special" and "cool special" - for these games you do not have a strong enough position and most likely have little experience. You will either be broken off, or, if you can prove your skills, they will not be taken as overqualified. If you are "special," but you really need a job, you can also play this game, but remember - the job will be of little interest to you and, most likely, will cause degradation. If you are not interested in the position - it is best to play in the "cool special" - and he suddenly need it too?

  Characteristic features of the situation:

  • Shallow questions.
  • General superficiality.
  • Low interest applicant as a specialist.
  • Evasive answers to the question of what specific position is being interviewed (relevant for specialists).

To the top

3. Ideal Interview (Simple Solution)

So, the players are placed in the starting position ... Fight! :) Ie NOW the game has begun. In order to make it easier to track the dynamics of deviations, let us first present the ideal version of the game in an interview after the applicant sends a resume and passes through it to the candidate for the position. The simple solution means that the participants do not conduct any undercover games and all goals are openly on the surface. In fact, this means narrowing the spectrum of situations to three: "an employee is urgently needed", "a specialist is sought for" and "a student is searched for."

1. Appointment of the interview
   • HR calls the applicant and assigns the next step at a convenient time for both parties. It is important to live communication, firstly, as initial impressions, secondly, it is important to agree exactly, and not to “inform”. It is also possible correspondence by e-mail. Required in several rounds.
2. Telekoll (optional)
   • HR calls the applicant.
   • HR represents those on the telekoll, or they introduce themselves.
   • The goal and plan of "telekolla" is voiced (sometimes they do not, which does not benefit the company's image)
   • The position (s) of the interview that is being held is voiced (this is often also omitted, sometimes in order to determine the most appropriate of the open positions).
   • Representatives from the company ask questions. Together or in turn.
   • It is proposed to ask questions to the applicant. This is the principle of simple politeness. I highly recommend not to skip this step - it leaves a very negative residue.
   • The applicant asks questions.
   • The parties agree on how the applicant will be informed about the results of the TV call.
   • After discussing and comparing the impressions of the company's representatives, the applicant is informed of the result.
   • If the applicant was informed about the next round, and the position / company ceased to be interesting to him after a live communication, he could politely refuse to continue the interview under a specious excuse.
3. Personal meeting
   • Same as on telekoll, but more extended. Perhaps several conversations with experts in different areas.
4. Personal meeting, round 2, 3, 4, 5 ... the Big Boss (optional)
   • Same as above. the Big Boss will be only one ...
   • In the last round, the game is actually played for the sum of the RFP.
5. Results (official offer / rejection)
   • Better when results come in the mail. Personally refuse extremely unpleasant. Never refuse directly to the interview. The refusal must be in a polite manner, possibly with the message that if suitable positions are opened in the future, the candidate will be informed. But the proposal should contain the conditions of work, the amount of compensation and the date (period) of the proposed exit.
   • If the results did not come at the agreed time - consider this a failure and a stone in the garden of organization of processes in the company.

Observation : Suggestions come quickly. Failures - long or do not come at all. It makes no sense to call back and clarify.

To the top

4. What are the deviations and why they arise (Problems)

Deviations and problems arise when players start an uncompromising game against each other, excluding a mutually beneficial result. For example, a typical situation: a candidate plays a “tough special,” and a technical specialist pursues the goal of “defining an alpha leader,” aggressively playing the move “have you ever done this?”. Bottom line: the specialist will not recommend the candidate regardless of whether he wins (- The candidate is bad, knows nothing ...), or loses (- Let others learn how to write code!). The game for the size of the RFP cannot be completed mutually beneficial if the maximum level of compensation that the company can offer is below the minimum expectations of the applicant. The pattern is simple: all games, where the goals of the interests of the company and the applicant are mutually exclusive, end in favor of the company. Even if the applicant has won a place and a high salary in a situation of "urgently looking for an employee" using the strategy of "cool specialists", the company will find a way to get rid of unnecessary expenses at the end of the project.

The subtlety lies in the fact that with the help of applied psychology (NLP turned over where it lies ...) you can force your opponent to play along. In this case, the one who "corrected" will continue to think that he also won. However, this is all at your own peril and risk, and there will be no concrete methods here.

There is one more factor contributing to deviations in the interview process - these are communication problems and the issue of responsibility within the company. If the interview process is not debugged, there may be overlays (for example, they didn’t call you back, because they didn’t know who should do it), or were late for your interview. These factors may give the applicant indirect information about the company in which the interview takes place.

So, the reasons for deviations:

• Hidden game
• The games of the participants initially exclude the winning of all parties (non-cooperative game).
• Communication problems in the company
• Liability issues within the company

To the top

5. How mutually beneficial to hold an interview for both parties (Difficult decision)

With a fair game will have to find a compromise. Moreover, a compromise is a decision in which both sides lose a little bit. I must say that on the part of the company a compromise is possible only if there is a very keen interest in a particular employee. Otherwise, a compromise is a compromise between the applicant’s desire to obtain a specific position and the applicant’s desire to obtain a high RFP.

In a dishonest game, methods of subordination and control, a challenge of sympathy and other applied psychology, are used. And they are used by both parties. Unconscious use of these techniques, I, personally, do not consider a scam.

Never go into direct conflicts - this is a great way to break any communication and set up opponents against yourself, minimizing the chance of your own winnings. At the same time, you can think anything, but all serious politics is done with an impenetrable, benevolent expression. However, if you think that everything is going fine, and you do not have a keen desire to kill opponents - it is better to open up, and not to keep an impenetrable defense. This can provoke a reaction and you will learn a little more about them. If you came to get a job honestly - what should you hide? :) Honesty is the best policy and weapon.

Possible solutions:

• Compromise (with yourself or with other participants)
• Play your opponent, changing the strategy to a more acceptable one.
• Consciously or subconsciously correct the opponent so that he begins to play along with you (this is in the common people - charisma, and in psychology - manipulation)

To the top

6. What strategies are most beneficial to the applicant

Summarizing the above, I can say that in order not to lose it is best to choose the strategy “I want to work in your company” in order to win as much as possible RFP - the strategy is “cool special”, and “special” represents a reasonable compromise.

The main mistakes during the interview

We suggest you, on the basis of examples (real life examples), consider the main mistakes that occur during interviewing:

• • In many companies, an interview for a Test or QA Manager position differs little from an interview for a Software Tester position (or QA Engineer). Moreover, it seemed to me that the people appointed to conduct the interview do not always know how to do it. Who suffers in the end? Of course - the company.
    - Assign interviews to the right people.

• • Often we hear: "Oh, today we are talking to a cool tester, we must ask him more abruptly!" - And what's the point then? You can fill up anyone, and then say that he did not know basic things. As a result, the company will not get a good employee, and all because those who interview, depending on the level of the candidate, vary the complexity and number of questions. (It's like in school, you, while studying in a special class, you get 4, solving problems of increased complexity, and your buddy Vasya from a real class gets 5, having solved a couple of elementary examples).
    - For the same position, the requirements for candidates should be the same. If he answers all your questions with ease, does this mean that the candidate is overqualified ? But there may be nuances that are hard to imagine ...

• • And here's another story from the developers smoking room. (Briefly about the project: web application = Jboss, Spring, DB2 ...) A guy with a very thick resume came to them for an interview. Our interlocutor reads it and sees the word WebSphere there and thinks: "Oh, cool dude - he knows the web site." And let him about this very sphere and ask, in the end it is overwhelming, and the guy does not take to us. Conclusion, why was he being driven by technologies not used in the company? - Yes, just to satisfy their self-esteem.
    - Questions at the interview should be closely related to what the candidate will have to do, in case of a positive outcome of the interview. Of course, this does not mean that there should be no other issues - MUST, but when making a decision you need to rely on the basic knowledge required, and not minor ones.

• • Or another situation that can not but grieve. Interviews for the position of the tester are carried out by 2 developers, and not the most competent ones in terms of the processes and understanding of the principles of testing. As a result: a tester is not taken, but taken by a “so-so” developer who agreed to test.
    - Interviews should be conducted by experts who know all the subtleties and nuances inherent to the position.

• • Recently faced with another interesting approach. Short dialogue:
    - Hello, we represent the company YYY, we want to talk with you
    - OK, let's
    - And tell us this. And tell us this ....
    ...
    (followed by a bunch of questions from their side and answers from the candidate)
    ...
    - Thank you for answering all the questions - bye.
    It seems all is well, but I'm sorry, the candidate was not told about any position, they were considered, they did not tell about the project, they didn’t give an opportunity to learn anything about the company (team, atmosphere, schedule, etc.). All this leaves negative feelings primarily about the company, and not about those who conducted this interview.
    - An interview is a two-way dialogue in which not only company representatives draw their own conclusions, but also the candidate. Therefore it is impossible to deprive him of the opportunity to learn more about the place of work.

• Another unpleasant moment after the interview is that, in the event of refusal, you are simply not informed about it. Trifle of course, but very unpleasant. They promised to report "within 3 working days", kindly, otherwise there is nothing to talk about in vain. Again, such punctures have a bad effect on the company's reputation.
  - do not forget to inform the candidates about the resu