I work for a big startup in LATAM and I'm running interviews for Engineering Manager positions. It turns out to be very difficult to find good candidates because we are looks for a good mix of very strong technical background, good experience dealing with stakeholders and managing teams. This is not very common and we end up with candidates that are either very rusty with their technical skills and mostly working as "Project Managers" or very technical and have almost no existing experience dealing with stakeholders and teams.<p>A lot of times, I found myself thinking "This person is far from what we are looking for" after asking 2 questions or just hearing the first 5m of what they are doing right now. I thought several times to stop the interviews to avoid both wasting our time and his/her expectations.
But I always felt if I do that I'm going to be a bad person and had a bad image. So, I always keep going with the interview trying to find questions to ask, even if I know the answer is not that important for the role, or far from my expectations or just don't care about the answer. I just, try to keep them engage with the feeling that I getting what I'm looking for, when in reality is completely the opposite.
I also don't feel good about this approach. Any advice? I'm a horrible person?<p>PD1: For sure, we need to improve our pipeline and what candidates are we hunting. It's far from flawless.<p>PD2: It never happened that I change my mind after finishing the interview.
This is a pipeline problem. You shouldn’t be getting candidates on site for scheduled interviews if you can rule them out with a few minutes of conversation.<p>Start doing phone screens. Ask those questions during the phone screen. Offer to schedule phone screens whenever convenient for the candidate, including evenings and weekends. Be flexible to their schedule.<p>If someone does end up on site and is obviously not a good fit, you shouldn’t spend an entire day wasting both your time and theirs. However, it’s not a good look if you’re sending candidates out the door after only 10 minutes, because it shows that your hiring process is broken. Some of those candidates will report about it online, which can result in a bad reputation.<p>In the odd event that a candidate makes it onsite but is obviously unqualified (phone screen false positive) I continue for up to about 45 minutes with the interview. I owe it to them for asking them to come on site, and at minimum it gives them a chance to see what we’re looking for and work on those skills to apply again later. Some times people are just nervous and end up performing much better in the second half of the interview, so it’s not a waste of time. Don’t spend more than about 45-60 minutes at most on dead-end interviews, though, and always remain professional and cordial.
It sounds like you need an interview before the bigger interview. If the questions aren’t too in-depth, I’d say have a timed shorter talk with the candidate to weed out any you don’t think would be a good fit. Think of it as a coding exercise before coming onsite. I imagine this will save you time in the long run.
You need to find a prescreen that gets more of these candidates rejected before the interview. Based on what you've seen, is there something you could ask them early in the process that would let you know they are not what you're looking for? Even if it had to be an "initial screening" call with no set time and ideally carried out by an HR person.<p>I agree it's bad form to just stop the interview, so better to figure out and screen for the dealbreakers in advance.
It feels like a cultural problem across your recruiting pool, with people 'traditionally' picking either a technical or managerial career track. What if you accept that you maybe can't find good ready-made candidates; can you grow good engineers and teach them people skills?<p>Maybe begin the interview by saying 'our company is very different, and working here will challenge a lot of your assumptions. Frankly, many people find it difficult or uncomfortable. But if you can adapt, you'll get to enjoy many opportunities that are usually reserved for business school types. How do you feel about that?'<p>I bet at least a few of your candidates would relish such a challenge, but are trying to conform to 'expected' roles.
> or just hearing the first 5m of what they are doing right now<p>Tell me, why does this filter work for a candidate who works as an IC right now, but had significant experience as an EM previously.