The Interview: mixed signals

We interviewed an engineer from Southeast Asia with good academic credentials. He came recommended by one of our senior engineers.  He was clearly eager to succeed and hard working.  Although his proficiency in English was limited, he had recently been studying in the UK, and could communicate reasonably well.

During the interview, he was presented with what seemed like a random question.  This was to test his problem-solving abilities, a critical skill for an engineering consultancy.  However, despite our attempts to formulate the question in different ways, he failed to provide an adequate response.  At the time, we attributed this to a language issue. 

On completion of the interview, none of the interviewers explicitly rejected him, but tellingly, none advocated to hire him either.  Facing recruitment challenges and swayed by his recommendation and good academic background, we decided to make him an offer.

Reality sets in

Once onboarded, his strengths were immediately apparent. He worked hard and demonstrated intellectual capacity. However, critical deficiencies emerged.

• He struggled with novel problem-solving, using inappropriate technical approaches developed for different projects. 
• This led to serious mistakes requiring extensive reviews of his work.
• He resisted collaborative work and struggled to build relationships with colleagues.
• His performance fell significantly short of requirements. 

Our attempts to help

We implemented several strategies to support his development.

1. Providing English tuitions.
2. Pairing him with senior engineers for mentorship.
3. Partnering him with a senior engineer from his home country to eliminate language barrier issues.
4. Providing more detailed guidance on project requirements and expectations.
5. Making him aware of our serious concerns and conducting weekly reviews with clear, short-term objectives.

Despite these interventions and open communication about our concerns, the performance issues persisted.

The difficult decision

Ultimately, we had to make the heartbreaking decision to let him go. This had profound consequences as his work visa was tied to his position with us, meaning he and his family would have to leave the UK and return to their home country.

However, his continued underperformance was affecting both project deliveries and team dynamics, with his colleagues having to compensate for his shortcomings.

Key learnings

We should have had a native speaker present during the interview to clarify whether the candidate was struggling with language issues or whether he could not deal with the actual questions. 

Although we were aware of the importance of problem-solving skills in our business, we had not made it an essential and explicit requirement when recruiting. 

Similarly, the need for candidates to be able to work openly and collaboratively with other engineers had not been identified as an essential requirement during the recruitment process. 

And finally, we waited too long to take decisive action when we realised the problem was not due to language issues but to deficiencies in fundamental skills. 

Conclusions

Recruiting is not an exact science.  It requires both empathy and objective assessment.

Being clear about the essential requirements for a role is a prerequisite for success. 

Giving candidates the benefit of the doubt is admirable but probing their core competencies is ultimately kinder to everyone concerned. 

Sometimes the most compassionate decision is to recognise early when a candidate is simply not the right fit to avoid personal and professional consequences later.

I can help

I work with overstretched leaders of engineering SMEs to help them prepare their business so they can achieve profitable growth.

To explore how I could help you, please use the link below to arrange a free 30-minute conversation.

http://tinyurl.com/HerveJardonCalendar