You’ve probably been there as well …\u00a0 You apply for a new job, so the polished CV and letter have been sent. Then you start going the process of engineer hiring: you passed the first round of selection, which verifies that your skills and competences are relevant.<\/p>\n
They Are ! So you are heading to the newco for meeting real people. You are very motivated, have learned how much EBIT the company did the 3 last years, you can even maybe recognize the CEO if you pass by him. You are an experienced software engineer, with a proven track record in the same field.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
But …. you are now facing a blank sheet of paper (or a paper board) and you have been asked nasty C questions (30 of them !) and some other silly logic questions. The problem is, at that stage, chances are you will fail miserably …..<\/p>\n
It happened to me a lot, I often succeeded, not being an emotive person, but I also failed for unknown reasons. Just cannot remember the Optimal Theoretical RTOS Task scheduling efficiency … (not joking at all). I was also a lot on the other side, hiring people or being part of the hiring process. My personal conclusion: all these tests are just crap<\/strong><\/em> !<\/p>\n Even worse, they would not tell you a clue on the Engineer you are about to hire (or not hire :(), for the following reasons:<\/p>\n A recent talk with a colleague even showed me the most pernicious aspect of it: candidate can be reluctant to work in such a company that focus on so bizarre and peculiar problems …\u00a0 so basically, you can lose smart guys forever !<\/p>\n I personally hired skilled people which revealed to be a nightmare to manage, beginner people which proved to be real killers and self-learners, and so-so people which stayed that way all they life … Each time, I asked myself “how could I have detected that before ?” and never found a clear answer.<\/p>\n So clearly there must be another way for efficient engineer hiring … which I am still searching.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"\n