Impossible Interviews

Ha Ha Ha

James! I agree with you. We the Engineers don't give importance ever to Business Administration. Those who has understood this point, believe me, have become successful. The IET has taken a great step to introduce the CMgr ship for it CEngs and IEngs which is highly appreciated...

Hi James,

I'd disagree a bit, this is more about project management - which is where an awful lot of engineers end up - than senior management. As a senior manager my answer would be "I'd put a good project manager on the job"

It's actually quite a good question, but the answer I'd be looking for (and I have used similar questions in interviews) would be "you can only manage what you can manage, but what you can do is plan effectively, keep tracking the project to the plan, adjust the plan so that it is realistic, and - most importantly - the moment that you are aware of issues that are out of your control that could delay the plan you raise them, LOUDLY" If someone just said "plan" I certainly wouldn't give them the job.

Engineering employers are always desperate to find engineers who are or can become effective project managers. If I'd been any good at it I'd have probably got to senior management 20-30 years earlier than I did! Although maybe if I'd have been a good project manager I'd have been a worse engineering leader...we'll never know.


There was an interview question that used to be a favourite at the BBC which, at the time it was given to me for an internal promotion, I considered an "impossible" one: "You are supervising a wireman who is brilliant at his job, and works three times faster than his colleagues, but after lunch (this was back in the days of drinking at lunchtimes!) you can't get any work out of him at all. How do you manage him?"

With hindsight, the correct answer for me - although definitely not the answer they were looking for - was "You and I work together to give me management training so that I know how to do it!!!" (In fact that may have been what I said, either way I didn't get the job. I left and ended up in a much more interesting R&D role...although in fact my first project management role was supervising wiremen who drank heavily at lunchtime!)


Cheers,

Andy

Andy,

My interview was quite some time ago and quite likely was for some sort of project management post. I think it was the potential breadth of the answer that threw me. Of course we would all start with a plan of some sort but we all know that it is most unlikely to proceed without some upsets on the way. Effectively I had moved on from the, to me trivial, first part of the question and was working on the follow up, "How do you keep to plan?" (Think unknown unknowns too).


I doubt if there is ever a guaranteed right answer to any interview question, or style for that matter. At my first interview for a 'proper' job the senior personnel manager leaped up from his desk when I said that one should use a calculator if accuracy in arithmetic was important. I honestly thought he would hit me, then he thumped the desk and exclaimed, "I couldn't agree more!" (I got that job!). Many years later someone told me that a carefully considered answer was always appreciated, just before I went for an internally advertised post. I thought I had seen the interviewer before but couldn't quite place him. Following the advice I had been given I slowly and carefully answered his questions. After the interview I remembered that he was a manager who was noted for briefly appearing in the central administrative office and asking, "What's new?", barely waiting for an answer before shooting off. Careful and considered wasn't his style so no surprise that that transfer didn't take place.

Your calculator answer reminds me of the interview question I was asked "how would you design a state-variable filter?". Never having designed one before I said "I'd look in the 'Active Filter Cookbook' ". I got that job! And, indeed, spent the next 12 months or so designing state-variable filters (although actually mainly using the 'Electronic Filter Design Handbook').


Having done a huge amount of interviewing (for all levels from school leavers to senior managers) the advice I always give is to be honest, and to approach questions the same way you would approach a problem at work - so for some people that will be carefully considered, and for some people it will be off the cuff. The interviewer will always assume (probably wrongly!) that the way you come over in interview is the way you will come over at work, so this approach works well to make sure candidates end up fitting in the right hole. As you say, every employer is looking for something different, so trying to follow a particular "style" can backfire in many ways.


Of the five interviews in my career that have led to me taking a new job, all of them turned into chats rather than Q&A. Not sure what conclusions if any you can draw from that...actually probably you can conclude that I fit best into organisations which prefer discussion to confrontation. No surprise there


Cheers,


Andy

James, 

In my opinion this is a general question and the answers are endless. Like many of these type of questions there are many answers and are as you mentioned situation dependent.  I think this question gets candidates rattled because the nature of the question makes one feel that there is only one write answer. During an interview we have all felt the glare of the interviewer and the pressure to say something intelligent.  So much of this answer depends upon the enterprise and thier project management policies.  I could write a book on the question. 


In my opinion, and if this was me answering the question.  I would hone in on the key words "ensure" and "schedule" and greated I have way more time here to answer this than most would in and interview and trying to be objective.  My answer (or opinion) here will illustrate how general the question is and the enormity of possible answers.   I don't think there really is a short answer. 


My answer:

To ensure that the "project is completed on time" in summary.........

I would begin with a well though out project charter that identifies key stakeholders, followed by the development of a comprehesive project plan that include scope, schedule, cost, quality HR and excellent stakeholder management and risk management plans ( as part of the big picture) this would be followed up by the executing where QA, team development, communication and stakeholder engagement is very important.  Helping ensure the project is on schedule requires diligent monitoring and controling efforts and can control scope, change control, Control quality, schedule, costs, controlling stakeholder engagement, risks, procurement, EVMthat includes earned value management(SV, CV, SPI, CPI calculations) an finally delivery of verified deliverables.  Then we close the project and or phase and cloe out procurements. (this is a quick summation so I may not have touched on everything.)


Finally, one of my favorite questions when asked at the end of an interview if I have any questions is:  "Does your company hire qualified people to tell them what to do, or does your company hire qualified people that can help you and show you what to do"  I always get puzzled looks


My 2 cents anyway

R. Derrick McLeod  MSc., PMP., C.Mgr.,MIET.,IDSA

Supposedly organisations like Google pose 'smart' questions in their interviews, presumably to reveal if the candidate is capable of 'thinking outside the box', (or inside the box as it now seems!). That would only work if the candidate shares the same culture as the interviewer, I'm thinking here of the way a Times crossword clue can be obvious to an enthusiast but absolutely obscure to those not used to forming acronyms from the names of Greek gods, say. They aren't even a test of intelligence for the same reason.


Possibly the only virtue of an interview is to determine if the manager and candidate subordinate can work with each other. That can only work if the interview is carried out by the manager; Sometimes the manager just gets employees selected by the HR process. Indeed following current dogma to its logical conclusion the manager shouldn't interview or even see the candidate precisely because they might, horror of horrors, be influenced by human factors rather than achieving the 'equality and diversity' target. But that is topic in its own right.

Just having a good looking plan doesn't mean that the product will be delivered on time.  If sales have promised the customer it will be delivered in X months, and operations can spare Y engineers to work on it, then you will get a plan showing Y engineers working on the project for X months, and delivering at the end of it.  Whether or not that's achievable is another matter.  


Before you even draw up a plan, the most important thing is estimation.  And before the estimation is understanding the customer's requirements.

James Shaw:


Possibly the only virtue of an interview is to determine if the manager and candidate subordinate can work with each other. That can only work if the interview is carried out by the manager; Sometimes the manager just gets employees selected by the HR process.

1. Can this candidate do the job?

• Will this candidate do the job?

• Will they fit in?

Interviews are probably most useful for assessing the last one - although they will give hints as to the first two.


Of course as a candidate you can find that you get with the menager at interview only to find that by the time you start (or shortly after) the manager moves jobs! All you can hope then is that a company culture that put that manager in place will put a similar manager in as their replacement.


Cheers,


Andy