My favorite interview

I was reading through Reginald's interesting blog entry about interviews and I started trying to see if there is a pattern in the way I typically conduct an interview. The basic philosophy is to make a candidate comfortable and to try to select, rather than reject. I usually start with asking the candidate to be at ease and to tell me something about themselves. We discuss their professional lives, why they are looking for a change, how long they have been working in the current position and so on. Then I ask them what they are working on currently, and what is their role in the project. While they speak, I try to form my opinion on their enthusiasm towards wha they are doing and how they seem to be faring in their team. This is important, as without being kicked about what you are doing, it will be difficult to sustain minimum 8 hours a day, 5 days a week. Also, most software is written in groups of 3-4, and it is important that the incumbent does not rub team members the wrong way. We have enough problems to cater to and would like to avoid the ego hassles, thank you!

I request them to explain the project high level design, and the lower level details of the modules they are working on. The idea is to get them to talk about what they should probably be knowing real well. If they make it this far, they are worth a real try to be inducted, and the interview now focusses on how much more they know. Would they mind explaining a bit about the interfaces to their modules? Why are the interfaces designed the way they are? Why are particular tools being used, what are their advantages/disadvantages? Would they be knowing some alternatives to those tools - another database, another package etc? If a client has requested something, does the candidate understand the business drivers to it?

There are some strong no-nos. Candidates who are not willing to be hands on - who want to purely lead are refused, as I interview programmers and not managers. Candidates who seem to get irritated when prodded will again not do, as we want people who can sit and discuss pros and cons and successfully drive their point across, or accept a superior point of view. Overall, personal integrity is sought after, though very difficult to judge. If the candidate is able to accept a mistake, it speaks volumes about his/her character.