A job interview is an opportunity for an employer and job seeker to find a mutual match. But too many candidates treat it like a game with a goal of winning a job. So, they lie, hide flaws, and give canned responses. Here are 4 types of people who fail interviews and why.
Over the years, given how subjective my profession is, I’ve tended more towards “why” and “so what” style questions over pure factual questions. Mainly around their belief, opinion, and red lines about what business analysis / consulting / contracting (delete as applicable).
That said, still trying to find a better way than an interview so any insights on that would be appreciated.
> still trying to find a better way than an interview
I get the sense interviews are kind of inevitable when there are way more candidates than positions. Talking to people is "good enough" at filtering out people who are least qualified and people who really wouldn't work well with you.
I'm a big fan of apprenticeships.
In the old days, when more people lived in villages and towns, and help was scarce, people would just hire anyone who wanted a job and train them on the job. In fact, I've heard that in some parts of the world, there's such a scarcity of plumbers (and other tradespeople) these days, that experienced plumbers will onboard anyone who wants to be one with no experience. They'll train you on the job.
Again, I know it's not "realistic" for a job where there's a glut of applicants, but it *is* an alternative to interviews.
Yeah - it's about what's practical as well as what's better.
And the apprenticeship idea is great. I recently watched a documentary on Japanese shokunin and how they went from novices to master craftsman in their lifetime.
My colleagues, hiring developers, will use a "code review". I think that the closest equivalent for BA would be some sort of case study. Still mulling how to make that work.
When I was fresh out of university and earlier in my career, I applied to several management consulting firms. I don't know if it's still the case, but back then, they loved case interviews.
Basically, they'd present a broad problem statement and ask you how you would solve it. Something like: "there's a clothing store looking to source inventory from a few different suppliers, each with their own pros and cons. Which suppliers should they use and why?"
I've been told they're looking to see how you think through the problem by looking at the questions you ask, how you define the problem, how you explore different alternatives, and of course, how you communicate and work with the interviewers to solve the problem.
The idea isn't really to reach a workable solution, but to see how you handle the process and think about things.
I imagine the process can reveal a lot about the candidate's experience level, and whether you'd enjoy working with them.
LOL. I have met all four of these archetypes.
Over the years, given how subjective my profession is, I’ve tended more towards “why” and “so what” style questions over pure factual questions. Mainly around their belief, opinion, and red lines about what business analysis / consulting / contracting (delete as applicable).
That said, still trying to find a better way than an interview so any insights on that would be appreciated.
> still trying to find a better way than an interview
I get the sense interviews are kind of inevitable when there are way more candidates than positions. Talking to people is "good enough" at filtering out people who are least qualified and people who really wouldn't work well with you.
I'm a big fan of apprenticeships.
In the old days, when more people lived in villages and towns, and help was scarce, people would just hire anyone who wanted a job and train them on the job. In fact, I've heard that in some parts of the world, there's such a scarcity of plumbers (and other tradespeople) these days, that experienced plumbers will onboard anyone who wants to be one with no experience. They'll train you on the job.
Again, I know it's not "realistic" for a job where there's a glut of applicants, but it *is* an alternative to interviews.
Yeah - it's about what's practical as well as what's better.
And the apprenticeship idea is great. I recently watched a documentary on Japanese shokunin and how they went from novices to master craftsman in their lifetime.
My colleagues, hiring developers, will use a "code review". I think that the closest equivalent for BA would be some sort of case study. Still mulling how to make that work.
When I was fresh out of university and earlier in my career, I applied to several management consulting firms. I don't know if it's still the case, but back then, they loved case interviews.
Basically, they'd present a broad problem statement and ask you how you would solve it. Something like: "there's a clothing store looking to source inventory from a few different suppliers, each with their own pros and cons. Which suppliers should they use and why?"
I've been told they're looking to see how you think through the problem by looking at the questions you ask, how you define the problem, how you explore different alternatives, and of course, how you communicate and work with the interviewers to solve the problem.
The idea isn't really to reach a workable solution, but to see how you handle the process and think about things.
I imagine the process can reveal a lot about the candidate's experience level, and whether you'd enjoy working with them.