> At my previous job, we got a set of generic questions like this on our hiring forms from HR. I don't think anyone in my group ever asked them.
I would love to be wrong, but interviewing still seems more magic than science. I've interviewed for positions and think I did great, and did not get a job, and for others, did poorly and did get an offer. On the other side, I've hired promising candidates that turned out terrible, and questionable candidates that turned out great.
There are some things you can do to filter out the worst of folks (e.g., a fiz-buz test or evaluating basic communication skills), but these generally just filter out the bottom 20%. It's maddeningly difficult to differentiate between the middle 50% and the top 20%.
When you occasionally find a rock-star, they generally know they're a rock-star and demand rock-star pay. The top 5% of candidates is rarely 2X more productive than the top 10%, but they can demand much higher salaries because they are easier to identify.
I would love to be wrong, but interviewing still seems more magic than science. I've interviewed for positions and think I did great, and did not get a job, and for others, did poorly and did get an offer. On the other side, I've hired promising candidates that turned out terrible, and questionable candidates that turned out great.
There are some things you can do to filter out the worst of folks (e.g., a fiz-buz test or evaluating basic communication skills), but these generally just filter out the bottom 20%. It's maddeningly difficult to differentiate between the middle 50% and the top 20%.
When you occasionally find a rock-star, they generally know they're a rock-star and demand rock-star pay. The top 5% of candidates is rarely 2X more productive than the top 10%, but they can demand much higher salaries because they are easier to identify.