Slashdot Mirror
Interviewing Your Future Boss?
crimethinker asks: "I am an embedded systems engineer for a small division of a large company. Up to now, we have managed to get by with little more than a 'team lead' position, but as our division grows, they are looking to hire a full-on engineering manager. I was one of the candidates, with my current boss's favorable recommendation, but I withdrew my resume when they told me the job was all paper and schedules; I'd never touch code or hardware again. Now the VP has a 'short list' of candidates, and has invited me to be one of the interviewers. Yes, you read that correctly: I will be interviewing the person who will become my boss. So, I put the question to you, Slashdot: what questions should I ask my prospective boss?"
Naptime?"
"Will you give me hell about reading Slashdot all day?"
You should ask your prospective boss about things that will affect your happiness with their "boss-ing."
Since you were a candidate yourself and withdrew, you have probably already figured out that your new boss is unlikely to be your equal in engineering.
But that's not her job anyway.
You should ask things about leadership philosophy, their personal goals in management, their ideas about telecommuting,
about how they balance their work and "real" lives.
Remember that if you are a good engineer, your boss works for you as much as the other way around (unless your boss is the Big Boss of course).
Try to figure out how much you would enjoy having this person around, and how helpful they are likely to be in clearing the way
for you to do your best work.
Use no buzzwords.
Thats my style, and it's worked well so far. I've interviewed about half my bosses and haven't had a bad one in 8 years.
This Like That - fun with words!
How much of a pay raise would you give me latet for a favorable reccomendation now?
Seriously, see what he/she likes to do outside of work. You don't want someone who is a total workaholic who will expect you to put in 80+ hrs/wk if that's not your bag.
The correct answer here is to give me a raise.
I've hit Karma 50 and gotten a Score:5, Troll... I win!
Pantless mondays?
"To face death, that's nothing much. But to feel really stupid when you die, well, that would be insufferable."
It's fairly clear that the reason you've been invited to take part in the interview is because you "know your stuff" inside out, more so than anybody who is two levels above you. Therefore, your portion of the interview competition should be to judge how much the candidates know about the exact technologies you're working with.
I'd come up with a list of 10 to 20 buzzwords that you use in your everyday conversations and e-mails, but keep that list secret from the candidates. See how many of those words each canadidate mentions in proper context as they talk with you and the other interviewers.
The point of this exercise isn't so much as to hire the high-scorer like it's a video game, but so that you can have a reason to veto somebody who is talking in generalizations but can't come up with the terms for what you actually do. Basically, your whole point is to eliminate anybody who is likely to become a PHB character if given the job because they don't know what you do.
"What is your position on the free coffee and donuts issue?"
On the other hand, if you want to ask *good* questions, think about what topics you and your current boss deal with, and ask about those questions. If it's a management job, then think about what managers can be bad at. Ask about their previous management history (are they a good leader?), ask about how well they understand the technology (are they the quentessential pointy hair?), and ask about how they view the postion from the point of view of being the interface between the techs and the upper management (are they there to keep you down, or to make things go smoothly?).
Also, think about what might happen a year or five down the line that will piss you off, and ask questions relating to that.
Narrative
You ask this person the same things as anyone else:
-Ask them if they understand the nature/scope of the job
-Ask them to describe relevant experience (professional, not futzing around on their own time)
-Ask them to describe any characteristics/attributes that make them a good choice for this job
-Ask them how they would handle any particular circumstances you either expect your operation to encounter, or some that you have encountered in the past that could have used some good leadership
-Etc.
Basicallly, when interviewing, you really only need to concern yourself with KSAs - knowledge, skills and abilities. Note that interpersonal communication and team skills are VERY critical KSAs. I value them more than actual technical or academic skills - those can be taught. The former, not as easily.
I sat on the committee that hired my current supervisor. She turned out to be one of the better administrator's we've had...
There exists no way of exchanging information without making judgments. --Bene Gesserit Axiom
You, no doubt, have an idea what constitutes a good manager. If you don't, here's my opinion:
A good manager:
1. Fights for her people with upper mgmt.
2. Gets her people the resources they need to do their job.
3. Gets the hell out of the way.
Put another way:
1. You know he will be there when you need something.
2. Otherwise, you'd never know he was there.
These are the traits you're looking for.
You have violated Robot's Rules of Order and will be asked to leave the future immediately.
Consider questions like:
a) describe a situation in the past when you felt you successfully reformed a poor-performing subordinate
a) describe a situation in the past when you felt you successfully communicated expectations with staff
a) describe a situation in the past when you felt you successfully motivated staff using incentives/rewards
Your goal is to try to get an idea of what it would be like to work for this person under good and bad circumstances.
You probably already realize this but make sure this guy understands computers. Ask him general questions to make sure he understands the general technology behind the projects (make sure he has a little geek in him). But most importantly make sure to ask him questions that you claim are easy and he should know but are anything but, see how he handles these situations. If he's starts trying to BS that's definate bad news, you want a boss who will admit when he's outside of his experience and is willing to listen to the advice of his subordinates.
I stole this Sig
There are other ways to move up.
If you don't want to be in management it doesn't mean your career is a dead end.
If it's strictly about money then in most organizations you won't make more than your manager even if you deserve it - but then, if you're in it for the money you should probably start your own company. A consulting company, for example.
But it's probably not strictly about money for this person, or he would've taken the management position. Lots of tech workers are much happier doing tech work than doing bureaucracy, and find greater rewards in challenging projects and creative freedom than in a slightly larger paycheck.
As for the resentment, it's possible, but hopefully the manager they hire will not be one who is insecure about their choice of career path, or about someone else deciding against it.
This Like That - fun with words!
If I'm a manager, and I can't manage people who are smarter and more capable than I am, that I am the organizational bottleneck. It is imperative to be able to work with people who are smarter than you are.
So, I'm glad you're not my manager, because I think you'd suck at it.
There's a difference between a team leader and a manager.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
His answer will reveal much about his leadership ability.
The Philosophy of Liberty | lewrockwell.com
You should ask him how he feels about institutional memory.
I'm not sure how old you are, but if you're approaching 50, you should be worried about being shitcanned and replaced by 2 jr. engineers fresh out of school, each making half your salary.
Whether such a replacement is a good idea or not is dependent upon the circumstances, but repeated purging of senior engineers for junior ones leads to engineering departments that repeatedly blunder into the mistakes of the past.
Ironically, if you're in that 45+ age range, you've probably just given up your best chance both to save your paycheck and to propagate institutional memory. Once you pass 50, you'll probably never get another engineering job should you lose your current one - you'll be too expensive to hire compared to someone a few years out of school (not to mention less attractive - physical appearance has been shown to be a major factor in hiring decisions).
The sad truth about engineering is that you can't do it forever. At some point, you have to step up to management or else you'll find yourself jettisoned at some point with no hope of finding another good-paying job. I've watched my father's career arc and seen a lot of his colleagues fall by the wayside (and through the cracks) because they didn't understand this reality. He's now on the cusp of retirement and is one of the last survivors from his generation of engineers at his company because he was willing to make that move to management.
Having removed yourself from consideration for this managerial role, it's in your interest for whoever's coming in to have an understanding of the importance of striking a balance between cost efficiency in terms of dollars-per-head and the importance of retaining experienced people (e.g. you) who are capable of larnin' them youngsters who will be coming in as your division grows.
Just my $0.02
-Isaac
I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. For Entertainment Purposes Only.
The one consistent thing I have observed in all my bosses who were good to work for, and all those who were dreadful, was that the good ones had children.
This means that they:
1. Have a life outside of work, and will understand that you do to.
2. They are used to dealing with illogical childish tantrums, and so will be well able to deal with upper management and the marketing department without it affecting you - and they will resist behaving that way themselves.
3. Will understand if you have to do occasionally weird hours if you have children of your own, without putting you on the no-promotions shit-list.
I manage a group of 11 engineers with varying projects in a medium size company.
Managing schedules and pushing papers and pencils, yes, this is a lot of the manager's job. But there's also strategy, technical direction, mentorship, hiring (and eventually firing), and more influence at the higher levels as the company grows.
That might not be what they tell you, but that's what it inevitably becomes if you're a manager that has any influence at all -- and being promoted internally, that's most likely what you'll get.
Having experience with all of those things and being accountable for them rather than being a guy who merely chimes in, hey that really rounds out your resume. Building software and product isn't all about writing code; here's your opportunity to find out about how the rest of it happens.
In the worst case, you decide you don't like it. Big deal. No one said you had to do the same job forever.
The great thing is that since you'd be the manager and hence, ultimately be in charge of the schedule, you can schedule yourself to contribute some code here and some code there. That's exactly what I do:
1. Give myself interesting things to do.
2. Keep the sub-project limited in scope.
3. Try and stay off the critical path.
Being a manager doesn't mean you can't be technical; it just means that your primary responsibility is to your people and not to the code.
Seriously - when was the last time a footballer got promoted from the team to do the paperwork, how many CEO's secretaries outrank the CEO.
If you are the natural team leader then its unlikely the team will listen ot the manager anyway, they'll listen to you. So don't hire yourself a manager, hire yourself an assistant. Someone who goes to meetings for you, plans schedules for you and lets you get on with the real job. That doesn't have to be someone who is in charge of or controlling what you do but someone who enjoys doing the bits you don't and you can work alongside.
So many IT companies seem to screw this up. Good project managers are great people to have but they don't have to be in charge.
How about something serious like:
What schedule/planning creation process do you use?
What sort of prioritization system do you use to rank the active projects?
What are some techniques you use for improving/encouraging productivity during especially streesful periods of a project?
I know that it's possible to get pat answers, but if the guy (or lady) is worth anything, he/she is going to be able to tell you about times in the past where these situations occured.
After all, *all* of our projects are on time, on budget, with minimal stress... Riiight.
If you are the natural team leader then its unlikely the team will listen ot the manager anyway, they'll listen to you. So don't hire yourself a manager, hire yourself an assistant. Someone who goes to meetings for you, plans schedules for you and lets you get on with the real job. That doesn't have to be someone who is in charge of or controlling what you do but someone who enjoys doing the bits you don't and you can work alongside.
I lived this experience.
I was the "lead developer" for many projects at a consulting company. We had several customers that required much personal attention that had no impact on the projects, so I asked my boss (the VP) to hire someone to take the phone calls, make appearances at "strategic" meetings, and handle the paperwork I hated. We gave this person the title "Project Manager" (PM), but the development team still expected my leadership.
We introduced the PM to our customers. He said some silly buzzword filled comments ("Joint Application Development") that added even more meetings, but that was fine as long as none of the techies (including me) had to go to them.
Everything was great until we started a new project. Everybody had the same titles, but the PM decided that as "manager", he should be the top of the chain-of-command. The first time he tried to give me orders, I explained his purpose. The second time, I had the VP explain his purpose. The third time, we transferred him to the Microsoft group.
I have had several great managers (and just hired one of them to work for my new company.) A great manager acts as a filter between the techies and the customers. He protects the time of the techies. He stays out of design and development, but can offer a non-techie perspective when asked.
This only applies if you have a great lead developer. I know of one group that fires programmers with leadership skills. The manager is a non-techie, but knows how to coordinate development with mediocre developers. Adding a hotshot guru programmer would disrupt his system. (He works for a large bureaucratic company where speed is not a priority.)
I spend my life entertaining my brain.
If he say's "What's Slashdot?", he's out.
If he says he only lurks, or posts AC, he still could be worth hiring.
If he gives you a user ID, great! Now go find out if he's cool, a 1337 h4x0r, or a troll.
But why is the rum gone?