As a boss, last thing you need is a subordinate who is self-confident and intelligent.
You need someone who is at his seat at least half an hour before the working hours - he should definitely be in his seat before the boss arrives - and leaves office only after 9 at night.
As a superior, you should like to catch him whenever he makes a mistake so you can fix him and justify a nominal salary hike for him during his appraisal process. He should be made to feel that you are doing him a favor for employing him in your office. Whatever self-esteem he has, that should be destroyed systematically, with periodic feedback. He will feel so worthless that the idea of leaving the company - though you pay only peanuts to him - will not enter his head at all.
Only with candidates like him,successful companies in India are run.
Only with candidates like him, you can make 15 lacs per year and 5 lacs annual bonus. You need workhorses like Satish so that the top execs can achieve frequent flier status, have seminars in luxury resorts and spend their week ends with family in foreign locales....He is your best bet, hire him !
In today scenario all interview are like acting. You should take training in acting " how make fool to Interviewer". Many people have launched this courses and offered. Join acting school then definatly you will be win.
I think most of the interviewer do not know what they should ask the new guy who just came out of the college who is green at work. No matter whether he dress well or not what ultimately need for an employer to figure out from the candidate whether he gained knowledge from the institute where he studied then put him some skill test to enable him to gain the skill from the industry. You can not expect skill at the time of interviewing the candidate. Knowledge ,academic and skill is entirely different.
Dear interviewer, Thank you for not selecting me. I am glad to be not part of a company whose hiring process is based on whether I keep looking at my shoes or I look at the desk. While I do understand that a more confident person who is better at communication is a better employee, I fail to understand why such soft skills are overrated. I can definitely understand the emphasis on such aspects for a marketing/sales position, but, I thought my technical skills and knowledge would have been more valuable for a software firm.
And what kind of a question was that? Cite an example wher eyou have been hardworking! I haven't been doing a critical appraisal of such instances in my life, like it happens in the industry, and I had hoped that you'd understand my lack of a convincing answers on that. Same goes for the question on my achievements. Atleast I was being honest. I am just not experienced enough to build a sales pitch for those questions.
In the interviews, I was looking for a good technical discussions which would help the interviewer evaluate me on the technical aspects, and me understand the culture and kind of work in the company. This interview and your reply has helped me understand the second part and I'd much rather strive for a job where I can have a meaningful technical discussion with the interviewer.
Thanks for your time and feedback though. Meanwhile, all the best in your efforts to hire a sales guy for a software job.
Re: A reply to the interviewer
by abhishek on Sep 26, 2009 12:26 AM
I have been at both ends of the spectrum, I have given interviews and also have interviewed many people. I completely disagree with your point of view regarding the recruiting process and what do organizations look for in a candidate. Yes, technical abilities are important and they can not be overlooked. But, I have seen a lot of people with exceptional technical abilities fail to deliver in the professional environment. Working in an organization necessarily requires a lot of soft skills and really, its not just soft skill. How do you behave in an interviews or in general tells a lot about your personality. (Ever heard of behavioral science?) But why do we look for these stupid things anyways? Because we know that a person who can learn/adapt/communicate/collaborate easily but technically average is more profitable for any company than a person who is technically brilliant but has problems in working in a team or has a bad temperament.
Re: Re: A reply to the interviewer
by abhishek on Sep 26, 2009 12:29 AM
Regarding the proof for hard working though, it was a big mistake on the part of interviewee to say that in the first place. When someone asks you what are your strengths you HAVE to give something which can be proved by an example or is quantifiable.
Re: Re: Re: A reply to the interviewer
by V on Sep 26, 2009 12:46 AM
Guest, hope you didn't find yourself in a position similar to the candidate in the past..nice one though
Re: Re: Re: Re: A reply to the interviewer
by sourabh verma on Oct 10, 2009 02:20 PM
Abhishek,
Can you please cite some examples on how these soft skills really help in being part of a team of building successful software product ?
I agree attitude is as important as technical knowledge, but I don't agree that attitude which is required to be a successful professional member of the team can be tested with these examples. I would hire a candidate who has : 1. Good skill set for the domain. 2. Has a pleasant outlook towards people/life in general. It is required to function in team.
I tried talking to the CEO of the company that such things were happening. He said that I need not worry about all that and just do my job. One day I said clearly that I would not conduct interview if it had been decided to reject the candidate even before the interview. I was shouted at and my marks in my appraisal were cut for this reason but I stuck to my decision.
