@andrewchen

New here? Check out my list of featured essays and Blogging roadmap

How do you do concrete interviews for non-technical people?


Why do people interview technical and nontechnical people differently? Nerds vs jocks

Interviewing engineers and objective tests for competence
Recently, I’ve been meeting a number of engineers to find more people I might want to work with. I think as a whole, most tech companies do a pretty good job interviewing engineers because at the very least, there are objectively correct answers to programming questions. In particular, you can give engineering questions which result in code that either runs or doesn’t, and having an interview candidate code with you for an hour is pretty enlightening.

(Note that ultimately, there’s still lots of gray area, and some solutions are better than others, but there’s at least a minimum bar for objectivity. You can never get rid of human judgement, of course)

Because there’s a strong signal for competence, as a result, you can create a series of “can you tie your shoelaces?” type questions which quickly suss out their level of expertise, and you can do this all in one phone call (or at the very least at the end of a couple hours together). In fact, if you search for “programming interview questions” you can get a sense for how concrete these interviews get – I think this is great.

Nontechnical interviews and weak signals for competence
Now let’s compare this to nontechnical interviews, which, in my expertise at least, generate weak signals for competence: Almost every interview process I’ve ever been involved with, whether I’m the interviewer or the interviewee, seems to lack the level of rigor that most engineers go through. Why is that? I imagine that much of it has to do with the fact that in nontechnical positions, it’s harder to decide objectively what’s “good” or “bad” – people often disagree on strategy, design, and it’s hard to figure out if you’re actually competent or not.

As a result, many of the nontechnical interviews I’ve seen tend degenerate into descriptions of previous work, or soft skills, or very subjective conversations around “how would you improve X or Y?” That’s not to say that these discussions aren’t useful, but for me personally, I’ve seen far too many people with 10 years of experience in some area that turn out to not be able to tie their shoelaces. The question is, how do you find this out sooner rather than later?

In fact, it may be that this entire discussion isn’t really about interviewing for technical people versus nontechnical, bur rather thorough interviewing versus sucky processes. Even then, I’d mostly argue that there’s a real issue that you can use objective tests in the engineering world to create strong signals of competence, whereas it’s much harder for marketing and product roles.

Crafting concrete interview questions for nontechnical roles
So what would a series of concrete tests look like for nontechnical roles? I would argue that you can rigorously test a couple key areas such as:

  1. Can you create the deliverables that are part of the day-to-day role?
  2. Are you familiar with previous relevant work in your area (whether you follow it or not)?
  3. Can you demonstrate that you can do the thing you’re being hired to do?

Let’s drive into each one of these areas, as a thought experiment of what it’d look like to do an interview structure that’s as concrete as what most engineers have to go through:

Part 1: Can you create the deliverables that are part of the day-to-day role?
This is probably the closest that you can get to a coding question, at least for nontechnical people. The point is, most nontechnical jobs still do provide deliverables to other people in the company – for some, they will be spreadsheets, or documented product roadmaps, or launch schedules, or powerpoints, or whatever. The question is, can you have them sit down and craft a basic version of whatever deliverables they’ll be expected to create on the job?

Here’s an example: Let’s say that you were going to hire a product manager who needs to have a strong background in user acquisition via search engine marketing. Ideally, you should be able to sit them in front of a blank spreadsheet and they should be able to model out the user acquisition process from start to end. This means they’ll know how to think about the problem like a funnel, show the different steps, be able to roughly approximate what the numbers might be, and then calculate the cost per acquisition.

Or, if you have you interviewing for sales, they should be able to sketch out the basics of an RFP response, or build out a sales pipeline document, or make a list of sales collateral they might need, or whatever. If it’s someone from the marcomm world, then they should be able to sit down with you and craft a budget for making a splash at a tradeshow, or creating a schedule for a product launch, or whatever.

The point of all of this is that it’s a “tie your shoelaces” exercise that complements the soft skills discussion and meandering conversation about previous work.

Part 2: Are you familiar with previous relevant work in your area (whether you follow it or not)?
The next set of questions can be asked around how engaged they are in previous work in their area, regardless of whether or not they follow it. This area I’m often torn about, since there are often talented people who don’t know anything about historical precedence – but I do think that it demonstrates competence in the main. In concrete terms, I think that you can test for a couple specific things:

  • Are they familiar with industry jargon in their field?
  • Do they understand the theoretical underpinnings for what they’re doing?
  • Have they read relevant books and blogs, attended conferences, or otherwise engaged in the discussion?

So for example, a product manager who focuses on go-to-market strategy should ideally be familiar with books like Crossing the Chasm or be aware of previous successes/failures in the tech industry. If the product manager is involved in the development process, you’d want them to be familiar with Scrum or Agile development, and ideas like the man-month. If they involved in product design, they would ideally know terms like visual language or affordances or Fitt’s Law.

As with the caveat in the previous section, I would ask these questions primarily to suss out expertise level and while it would contribute to a final hire/no-hire decision, it wouldn’t be the overriding factor. Ultimately some people are amazing decision makers on products without having formal training, but as entrepreneurship has a long history of failures, you’d ideally find people who were familiar with other situations that led to success or failure.

Part 3: Can you demonstrate that you can do the thing you’re being hired to do?
Similar to a programming interview to test programming skills, ideally you’d have the applicant tested in a way that most resembles their actual day to day job. That way you are testing them for their actual skills, rather than their self-reported skills. The trick to this, I think, is to break down the actual job description into specific areas that define the success or failure for them in the role.

For example, let’s take hiring a technical recruiter, whose day-to-day role you might break into:

  • Prospecting (finding new candidates)
  • Making contact and selling
  • Evaluating skillsets
  • Scheduling and interview coordination
  • etc.

Ideally, the applicant would be tested using the real tools that they would use. If they are prospecting and using Linkedin, you’d give them a job description and ask them to pull up the site. Then you’d have them go through and try to find good candidates for you. Similarly, you’d ask them to pick a particular candidate and draft a high-quality, personalized request for them to come in. And so on.

When my girlfriend interviewed for IDEO, the global product design consultancy, they had her present her resume to a group of people in slide format and then take questions from a group. This is really smart, because of course a lot of her job is to take ideas, synthesize them down, and present it in groups. So I think that having her do that is a great test for competence in this area.

What’s next here?
I think the next step in this blog discussion would be to actually post some job titles and give rough formats for interviewing for that type. If I have time over the next couple weeks, I’ll write something up.

Has your company created a rigorous process for selecting non-technical hires? If so, I’d enjoy hearing more – please write a comment.

Want more?
If you liked this post, please subscribe or follow me on Twitter. You can also find more essays here.

Like this post?
If you liked this post, please subscribe or follow me on Twitter. You can also find more essays here.

Written by Andrew Chen
May 18th, 2009 at 9:00 am
  • http://JunLoayza.com JunLoayza

    I remember when I was recruiting my senior year at UCLA. Behavioral interviews were a joke. “What are your three greatest strengths?” or “Tell me a time when you were a leader of a situation.” Cmon… are you serious? This is the best you can do.

    But then, I came across the case interview questions for management consulting. This case interviews were extremely tough and I remember studying for 4 weeks just for the interview. So, I do believe that there are concrete, credible interviews outside of engineering. Management Consulting and I-banking interviews are to types of careers that do have tough, yet very technical interviews.

    I do like the questions you suggested. I would add one more: Give them a real live case. Give them a problem that you just had to solve or deal with a client, and see if they can solve it right in front of you. If they're able to do it, then there's a high possibility that they can do their job.

    Just stumbled this post and submitted your blog to Viralogy. Hope it brings you a lot of traffic!

    - Jun Loayza

  • http://www.charleshudson.net chudson

    Andrew,

    Good post, as always. There's something worth noting that wasn't mentioned. It's not just about asking the right questions, it's also about having people who know how to interpret the responses. One of the challenges for startups is that while you might have 5-6 engineers who know what a good engineer looks like, you might have 1 or in some cases 0 people in the company who have a firm understanding of what a goo BD, sales, marketing, or operations person looks like. Even having access to the right level of rigor won't necessarily help that company identify the right person and whether he / she is competent.

    One thing I've seen work well is to have the Board or some trusted advisors / friends who are familiar with what skill and competence in the aforementioned fields looks like be an integral part of the skills portion of the interview. The core team has to make the call on culture, but there's simply no substitute for having a skilled marketer, biz dev person, or salesperson evaluate one of their own ilk and render judgment.

  • http://andrewchen.typepad.com Andrew Chen

    Jun,
    I definitely agree that case interviews are useful for consulting, specifically, but would wonder how much a case interview style would make sense across different roles.

    I think it tests a very specific set of knowledge for the consulting industry. Namely, a lot of the industry is about drilling into things (qualitatively and quantitatively), doing research, and presenting stuff back. I'd argue that it's a subtype of my Part 3 set of questions? So for the consulting industry it's great, but for a nontechnical role like a hiring manager, I'd rather just sit them down in front of a computer and see them work, rather than asking them questions.

    Just the thought off the top of my head…

  • http://andrewchen.typepad.com Andrew Chen

    Very true! Great point.

  • http://collectivesys.com/ Jerry Ji

    I asked a similar question on Hacker News a while ago — http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=516032 (How do you recognise good business guys if you're a programmer?) — and found most of the responses/comments insightful.

  • fnthawar

    Great write-up on how to search for the elusive great non-technical person. I would say as far as interview process goes, I highly recommend TopGrading as a way to get to the meat of a candidates experience. I think the following statement mostly holds: “The best indicator of future success is past success”.

    This can be brought out with a TopGrading style interview.

  • Shana

    I would add that if you want to potentially break the law*, you could always try giving someone something like the Guilford's Alternative Uses Test (in three minutes come up with all the uses that one can think of for an object.)

    It is one think to know your material. It is another to be creative and be able to adapt your material well to a new situation. I assume this would be a superb quality in a startup.

    (*However, in the United States, you are not allowed to give aptitude tests as part of job applications. I am not sure if this would qualify. Ask a lawyer.)

  • http://www.charleshudson.net chudson

    Just read your article and the feedback – good stuff!
    ________________________
    Social Gaming Summit 2009 – http://bitly.com/fYJjq
    (650) 249-0905

  • http://www.erepublik.com/ alexis bonte

    Hi Andrew, great post again (I now save them so i can read them when I have some thinking time). There is one thing that I think you underestimate and that I've seen after hiring probably close to one hundred people in 12 years of being an entrepreneur. If your impression in the first 2 minutes is not great and you are not dying to have the person on your team, then unlikely its the right person (not necessarily for the job but almost surely for your company).

  • http://tommygwu.blogspot.com Tommy "G" Wu

    I agree that it's best to ask them for a deliverable that mimics a real situation you may face in that position. Too many banking and consulting interviews are setting up situations that 1) never happen and 2) can be prepared for by reading a vault guide. In banking they tend to ask you for formulas that you can memorize and/or be taught in about 1 hour. In consulting, they ask you to do a good deal of market sizing (e.g. how many grey volvos are in the U.S.) off the top of your head, which is COMPLETELY realistic since I'm sure that's exactly what Bain consultants do when they are asked a question by a client (or maybe they take 6 months, a massive team to tell you what you already know in a PowerPoint deck. I suppose it would be hard to replicate that in a 1 hour timeslot).

    I think the trouble with most interviews is they have a predictable pattern that can be investigated beforehand. An interviewer wants to test a candidate not only on their knowledge base, but also their ability to grow (raw intelligence). I think testing raw intelligence requires putting them outside their comfort zone by creating novel situations the candidate doesn't have full experience with. Novel situations are only novel to the extent of the usage of that question. Thus, it's hard for this to be scalable and normalize between candidates (e.g. Google needs to be able to pick from a subset of questions to ask their candidates, but these questions must be carefully picked to each candidate and refreshed constantly). I think the challenge is equivalent to having to write a GMAT test that adapts to each user and returns a consistent score… every week.

  • http://andrewchen.typepad.com Andrew Chen

    Good comment. You should have your own blog ;-)

  • http://twitter.com/metapede Shawn Smith

    I re-read this post after reading your latest, and it's something that has always bothered me too.

    I think one reason companies don't put this kind of rigor into non-technical interviews is the same reason most basketball teams don't use a full-court press (despite the fact it's near certain to bring much better results): because it's hard.

    Another reason was alluded to by chudson. That is, companies don't really know what they are looking for from non-technical people. A small company interviewing for, say, a director of product management might have candidates meet with the CEO, VP Engineering, VP Marketing, etc. None of these people works in the trenches of product, and so none has a concrete notion of what they really need.

    Finally, I once interviewed for a company that had candidates write an essay about exceptional customer experience, and then do a substantial amount of work (i.e. deliverables) on a hypothetical client project – and then present it to a group. This was rigorous, concrete and comprehensive. When the company hired me, however, it became obvious that they didn't operate with this kind of rigor, and so it might have been better for them to devise a way to find out how well I would perform amidst chaos and constant fire drills.

    (basketball reference above is courtesy Malcolm Gladwell's article in the May 11 issue of the New Yorker – http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/05/11/0… )

  • http://twitter.com/metapede Shawn Smith

    I re-read this post after reading your latest, and it's something that has always bothered me too.

    I think one reason companies don't put this kind of rigor into non-technical interviews is the same reason most basketball teams don't use a full-court press (despite the fact it's near certain to bring much better results): because it's hard.

    Another reason was alluded to by chudson. That is, companies don't really know what they are looking for from non-technical people. A small company interviewing for, say, a director of product management might have candidates meet with the CEO, VP Engineering, VP Marketing, etc. None of these people works in the trenches of product, and so none has a concrete notion of what they really need.

    Finally, I once interviewed for a company that had candidates write an essay about exceptional customer experience, and then do a substantial amount of work (i.e. deliverables) on a hypothetical client project – and then present it to a group. This was rigorous, concrete and comprehensive. When the company hired me, however, it became obvious that they didn't operate with this kind of rigor, and so it might have been better for them to devise a way to find out how well I would perform amidst chaos and constant fire drills.

    (basketball reference above is courtesy Malcolm Gladwell's article in the May 11 issue of the New Yorker – http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/05/11/0… )

Recent posts

Want more? Featured essays and book recommendations