How To Interview And Hire Dave (A Step-By-Step Guide)

The interview and hiring process is flawed, especially when it comes to evaluating and hiring top performers. I do not participate in the process without some restrictions. Most of the restrictions come about in reaction to specific abuses I've encountered by employers.

There is no employer in existence that can keep up with me. I've made original contributions to number theory and real-time analysis; and I have mastered small embedded software development. I've made a career out of innovation and out of solving difficult problems that have plagued embedded control work for decades. I've turned down interviews with IBM, Hewlett-Packard, Cisco, and others; for the simple reason that they failed to impress me during an initial phone contact. It is the same game in any organization--defective supervisors and managers who make administrative and technical messes and then saddle engineers with their own negligence; all the while not learning from mistakes and not taking responsibility for their actions. I've not yet encountered an organization that develops embedded software that can even meet the most basic of goals--administrative neatness. All prospective employers are guilty until proven innocent.

Life is too short for either element, but (2) is particularly annoying. (2) usually comes from supervisors and managers, and it is the same old old set of give us more time attempted deceptions. My message to the individuals who are posing questions in category (2) above is simple: Why don't you spend 1-2 extra hours per day trying to change the situations you warn interview candidates about? My personal interview process is designed to weed out those employers who are not truly interested in performing or competing.

No existing organization is +1 on the scale above. I make this statement because I'm truly visionary and no employer to date has been able to keep up.

It is not appropriate for me to think about an employer in terms of self-actualization or what I might learn on the job, because no employer has anything to teach me. The most I can hope for from an employer is an environment where my performance is not diluted.

I rate work environments nearly exclusively on how profoundly the employer will limit my productivity and my ability to make a competitive contribution to the organization. The way to marry a supermodel (me) is to convince me that you can provide an environment free of performance obstacles.

I've found through experience that employers are capable of a lot of unproductive behavior at interviews.

The most common difficulty I encounter at interviews is that the interviewer is not technically mature enough to interview me or to understand my responses to questions. Typically, interviewers will pose questions reflecting a lack of insight into the nature of problems or will pose reasonable questions but not be technically mature enough to understand my responses. I've not yet found a completely effective way to avoid the effects of a gap in technical maturity which is too large.

My interview requirements, which come directly from unproductive behaviors by employers, are enumerated below.

Requirement	Potential Undesirable Behavior
All items representing significant interview expense (airfare, rental car, hotels, copies of books or papers, etc.) must be purchased in advance by the prospective employer or I must be reimbursed in advance.	I've encountered employers where it was difficult to obtain reimbursement. I choose not to take the risk that sooner or later, I will encounter an employer where it is impossible to obtain reimbursement.
A hiring decision must be made based on only one day of interviews (there will be no second round of interviews).	I've had employers ask me in for interviews when they had already decided to hire another candidate but "just wanted to be sure" (this is like asking another girl out on the day before your wedding). I've also quite often had employers fail to disclose in advance the number of interviews required, leading to a situation where I keep receiving phone calls with the message of "... there is one more person who'd like to meet you before we make a decision". Restricting the interview process to one event prevents abuse by the employer.
Interviews in total may not span more than 4 hours.	I've been through interviews that lasted the entire day. Typically, each interviewer had a 1-hour slot, and would ask pretty much the same questions as every other interviewer. This is unproductive. In general, the maximum number of individuals that reasonably have a need to meet me are: A representative from HR. My potential colleagues. My potential boss. My potential boss' boss. That can all be squeezed into 4 hours or less. The easiest way to do this is to combine the interviews of all potential colleagues or combine the interviews in other ways.
Interviews must not include lunch.	I do not believe that a lunch with a candidate has any value in evaluating the candidate's fit with a particular job or a particular company.
*Reference checks must be made after* a decision to hire.**	I've had problems in the past with recruiters and prospective employers wasting a lot of my references' time by checking references too early in the hire process. Some reference checks have been quite invasive (20+ minutes of questions). For this reason I require that reference checks be the absolute last step in the process. I would also add that reference checks have a limited value in evaluating top performers such as me. Some employers in the past have placed undue emphasis on the opinions of previous supervisors. Since all supervisors I've encountered in the past are substandard performers, the opinions they would give are predictable. One could expect statements like "He couldn't accept mediocrity" or "He was uncontrollable". The true meaning of those statements is "He was not satisfied with my performance, and in some cases discussed it with me frankly and asked me to work a bit harder". The opinions of past supervisors are meaningless.

The steps below, in the order listed below, are required of prospective employers. Many employers are unwilling to follow the steps below, and have even described me as arrogant or unemployable. What can I say? Not everybody gets to marry a supermodel!

Step Number	Step	Detailed Description Or Rationale
1	The recruiter or prospective employer must e-mail or FAX me a job description.	I do not go to interviews or proceed further into the process unless I understand what I would be expected to do on the job.
2	I must be assigned a liaison with the prospective employer (typically an engineering manager or an HR representative), and I must be provided with contact information (phone number and e-mail address). All subsequent contact (travel arrangements, interview arrangements, questions, etc.) must occur through this liaison.	I've found from experience that dealing exclusively with recruiters leads to information filtering problems. I deal with employers directly.
3	I must be advised of the job title, and it must be acceptable.	Any job offered must be as a senior engineer, a technical specialist, or above. I had to turn down one job in the past because the job title was not acceptable.
4	I must agree with the prospective employer on the salary range.	In the past, I had to turn down one job because the recruiter had indicated one salary range but the employer had in mind another (with apparently no communication between them).
5	I must obtain permission to maintain a *nix server within the company (usually, near my desk).	I have a unique mechanism for storing information and collaborating with bosses and colleagues. I maintain all my project notes and other materials (I've gone nearly paperless) on a *nix server which I administer, and this is also the mechanism I use to share information with bosses and colleagues. The server normally includes a search engine. Usually, permission involves only a short conversation or e-mail exchange with the company's IT manager. I don't work in environments where I am not allowed to maintain a server, because it impedes my ability to organize and share information.
6	The prospective employer must complete my online software maturity questionnaire and e-mail me the results.	I'm interested in the technical maturity and desire to compete of the prospective employer. A low score on the questionnaire does not necessarily mean that I would exclude a prospective employer from consideration; but it means there would need to be a very persuasive pitch from the prospective employer to convince me that the employer really wants to reform.
7	The prospective employer must e-mail me the organization's coding standards document for analysis.	I've found that coding standards documents (or the lack thereof) are the single best indicator of an employer's level of technical maturity. I examine these documents in advance.
8	I will make a decision about whether to move forward.	For the vast majority of employers, I choose not to pursue the opportunity. Usually, the process stops at this step. The normal reason I choose not to pursue the opportunity is that the employer has failed to convince me that they desire to compete.
9	Interviews.	Please see my requirements for interviews, above.
10	A verbal commitment to hire, subject to reference and/or background checks.	If the employer wishes to hire me, they must offer a non-binding statement of intent to hire (a casual e-mail is acceptable), subject to reference checks and background checks. (This allows me to avoid burdening my references unless there is true intent to hire.)
11	Reference checks, background checks, drug tests, etc.	Only at this point in the process will I provide references.
12	Decision by prospective employer about whether to hire.	The employer must make the final decision about whether to extend an offer.
13	Letter of offer.	The employer may extend a written offer.
14	Decision by me about whether to accept the offer.	I will make a decision about whether to accept the offer.

Sound credit: R. Lee Ermey.
This web page is maintained by David T. Ashley.
$Header: /cvsroot/esrg/sfesrg/esrgweba/htdocs/authindiv/dtashley/hiring_dave/index.html,v 1.5 2003/05/11 07:11:27 dtashley Exp $

+1 (Positive)		An employer who can teach me new skills or give me new insight.
0 (Neutral)		An employer that cannot teach me new skills or give me new insight, but will not interfere with my productivity or my ability to contribute to the organization.
-1 (Negative)		An employer that will interfere with my productivity or my ability to contribute to the organization.