What do you look for when hiring someone?

DatabaseHead

Just curious what you all look for.

I have a few items that I really like, some probably formed by my interaction with people in the past.

I find people who strong math backgrounds can adapt to the BI and Data space quickly. For instance, a lot of time they are light on SQL, but have a lot of SAS experience. The syntax is VERY similar, they usually pick it up fairly quickly. Since they taken courses with abstract (math) theory, they have a easy time visualizing relationships and concepts before we model them.

I also like high GPA's if they list college and professional exams or certifications. (but not to many weirds me out to see 20 listed). I also have to admit I love one page resumes I really don't care about the second page.

I can't stand when someone list "Smith Consulting' and their last name is Smith. Ugh......

Anyway I would like to see what you like when hiring.

markulous

It depends on what I'm hiring for. Some of the commonalities though:

- Someone that's a culture fit. You're ultimately hiring people and if their personality doesn't fit, why bother wasting everyone's time?
- Someone that shows growth and learning ability.
- Someone that can speak to people respectfully and be courteous. Unless they're some developer that works in their basement and never talks to anyone, they have to have customer service skills.

Danielm7

Personality and fit are huge outside of technical ability. If you come in and are totally competent but completely socially awkward you're not going to make it through to the next stage. I would never ask someone's GPA and don't really care even if you put it on your resume. I want someone who is genuinely interested in the field and you can tell when you talk to them.

dave330i

Competence. It's surprisingly hard to find.

DatabaseHead

dave330i wrote: »

Competence. It's surprisingly hard to find.

100%

I've done quite a bit of hiring in my career and I love math and engineering backgrounds. Most IT functions are so far beneath these folks it's almost comical, to a certain extent developers fall into this category.

I look at it this way. I know a Buick sedan can go a 120 mph's down the highway, but it's being utilized at 90% capacity, I want a Ferrari where it can go 120 MPH at only 50% utilization.

UncleB

DatabaseHead wrote: »

I would like to see what you like when hiring.

Filter 1 - I tend to use a technical test performed by a recruitment agency on the candidates to narrow the field - nothing too deep but it weeds out the obvious incompetents.

Filter 2 - telephone interview the remaining candidates to weed out the ones who can barely speak English or have problems in communicating things clearly.

Filter 3 - face to face interview, 60% scenario based questions with a technical base to see how they handle problems and if they know the principles of the technology they are working with. 20% asking them to explain facets of their career history I picked up on and 20% psychological questioning (how do you respond if you find a colleague is stealing etc).

Filter 4 - if any still want to work with me after these, they get to meet my boss and let my boss seal the deal (or reject them if he has a personal objection for any reason).

During stages 2 and 3 I build up a profile of the person so I have final points to probe in stage 4 if I am not 100% sure.

Often a candidate won't score that well in some parts technically, but if they come across as someone who is capable of learning and already knows the basics then I sometimes take a gamble that they are worth teaching the specifics.

thanks
Iain

SweenMachine

dave330i wrote: »

Competence. It's surprisingly hard to find.

Pretty funny how difficult it can be to find qualified applicants.

Thankfully, since I work for an MSP, I have a whole bunch of super smart technical people to help me navigate the hiring process. It is left up to me, however, to gauge how these individuals will fit in my environment. There are so many soft skills you just cannot teach.

-scott

pevangel

Personality fit is a big deal for me. I'd like somebody who's accountable, has a strong desire to learn and grow, and will be able to get along well with the team.

Your technical knowledge is constantly changing from experience, studying, and taking classes/bootcamps. Your personality is shaped by your whole life experience. It's easier to learn BGP than it is to learn how not to be an a-hole or a narcissist.

joshmadakor

pevangel wrote: »

Personality fit is a big deal for me. I'd like somebody who's accountable, has a strong desire to learn and grow, and will be able to get along well with the team.

Your technical knowledge is constantly changing from experience, studying, and taking classes/bootcamps. Your personality is shaped by your whole life experience. It's easier to learn BGP than it is to learn how not to be an a-hole or a narcissist.

Hah, I like this!

chmod

A balance between technical skill(i dont expect them to know everything but to be capable to describe the do know their stuff) and attitude, is harder to find people with the right attitude and personality.

d4nz1g

we usually throw the guy in a troubleshooting lab with around 3-4 tickets and ask them to solve. at the same time, asking stupid questions like "what that's command for? how does it change the protocol's behavior?". work under pressure and know how to get around such questions and being polite/demonstrating knowledge on a given topic is a must.

before this lab, there is a nice amount of technical questions that we don't expect a "right or wrong" answers, but we look at the way the guy thinks. you can give the "not best" answer but you can turn the table by showing the way to the conclusion.

also, the company performs a background check just to see if the guy is who he says he is.

EANx

Assuming the person claims to have the minimum experience level we're looking for, personality fit, honesty, a level of respect for other people, communication ability and customer service skills. I've seen too many people with attitudes about their abilities, I don't rather hire someone with a good attitude and send them to a few classes

paul78

I leave the technical evals to others. I've always focused on 3 things about candidates.

1. Passion for their craft - I don't believe in evaluating candidates for specific technical knowledge. It's too narrow a focus and generally assumes that a candidate should know something that I know which may not always be useful. I rather find complementary knowledge bases. It's more important to me to watch for a candidates interest in some particular area of technology - what motivates them and how they solve problems.
2. Cultural fit - Different companies have different needs and it doesn't necessarily mean that a candidate isn't competent. But a competent candidate can still fail or become frustrated in a company which doesn't align with a candidates viewpoint of the company culture. For example, someone that typically enjoys the structure and organization of a bigger company may find it difficult to work in a tech startup that has little structure and flying the seat of their pants and pivots regularly.
3. Commitment to the business - a candidate that jumps jobs often or cannot articulate their previous employers business value is usually not going to get hired. Ultimately, when I am hiring technologist for a company - it's to find people that are not just looking for a job - if I wanted someone like that - I would just outsource the role.