Nayan Tejani’s Post

View profile for Nayan Tejani

Testing Solutions Architect | Independent Consultant | QA Solutions Architect | Test Automation and Performance Engineering | Pre-Sales, Business Development and Revenue Growth | Empowering Change, Inspiring Excellence

The Art of Interviewing: Are We Failing Great Candidates? As a seasoned Lead Solutions Architect in QA/QE w/20+ years of industry experience, I’ve been part of countless technical interviews in my last Organization, both as a panelist and a mentor. Over the past 6-7 months, I’ve coached over 25 professionals (all in good faith, no money involved), conducted mock interviews, and helped them prepare for real-life scenarios. But despite all the preparation, a glaring issue keeps surfacing-a fundamental flaw in how interview evaluations are conducted. Here’s what I’ve observed: 👉 For Junior to Mid-Senior roles, about 50-65% of R1 interviews are wrapped up in just 10-12 minutes—a time barely sufficient to scratch the surface of a candidate’s technical depth or problem-solving approach.   The candidate is bombarded Q's on code syntax and asked to write 2-3 lines of code. Okay, that’s absolutely fine. But simply if the candidate does not answer say 2 or 3 out of 10-12 questions **YOU CHOSE** to ask him back-to-back in first 10-12 minutes, does not prove that He/She is not hands-on. They can learn the fundamentals behind those 2-3 Q's. Give them a Chance!     👉 For some of peers, with whom I brainstormed for Senior positions, the opposite happens. Round 2 Interviews stretch beyond 30 minutes, often hitting the 60-80 minute mark. While this might sound like thorough evaluation, it often veers into unstructured territory, leading to unfavorable outcomes. At first, if R2 panelist does not find the candidate suitable in the initial 20-30 minutes, then what inspired them to extend the discussion so long?   "Tell me 1 or 2 most challenging situation that you have encountered in your career. How did you solve those?" A lot of Interview panelists are fascinated with asking this particular question. But the evaluation gets digressed and looses it worth, when the Panelist starts expecting that the candidate response should resonate very well with the Hiring Company's Challenges. How can we judge any candidate, be it junior / mid-senior / even senior management, based on their responses with a bias towards only what you want to hear or what you have solved. No two Projects / Lob’s will have ditto same challenge situation. Likewise, not every candidate might have encountered exactly same situation that you are expecting to them to explain. Lastly even, if the problems are similar, there is no such thumb-rule to address and solve a problem in only one way. Because everything is subjective, situation-specific, and Individual Approach. As far as problem was resolved, that demonstrates Leadership and Problem Solving Skills.   So, where’s the problem? Let us park this for now; we will diagnose that as well.   I would love to hear from you on above. What has your experience been with technical interviews—either as a candidate or a panelist? How can we make the process better? Share your thoughts below! #TechLeadership #InterviewInsights #QA #QE #HiringExcellence

To view or add a comment, sign in

Explore topics