CAD Interview Questions

[jguest]

Every employer I have ever worked for wanted to promote from within. If applicants have no desire to learn and grow, they have no place at a forward thinking company. The employees that aren't interested in climbing tend to see their pay scale take a similar curve.

Please don't take this as a personal attack, because it's not intended as such, but Gabe you seem to be missing the point.

What I believe Richard is saying is that he enjoys being a designer and has no desire to move into management. I see no problem with this, and I fully expect that most anyone else who shares this point of view and is happy to continue in the same role throughout their career, is also willing to accept the fact that they are never going to recieve the same salary as executive management.

There is no rule or law that states that everyone who enters a company must continue to be promoted ad infinitum. Far too often, in fact, I have seen great designers and engineers promoted into management roles that they didn't really want simply because they were the most senior person available within the company. Whenever this has happened it has been the department that lost the engineer or designer that has suffered, because they are rarely replaced and if they are then at very least the replacement will take a few months to get up to speed. Also, from my observations, really good engineers &/or designers in this situation often don't make good managers because they are usually wishing they were actually back doing the work rather than talking about it.

As for actual interview questions though, just think about the things that are genuinely important to you as an employer. e.g. If you want to know how well they know the software, then ask them some technical questions about the software, or ask them which version/s of the software they've worked with. (If the most recent they've used is R14 then you know you'll have some training ahead of you.) Ask if they've just used ACAD 'out-of-the-box' or if they're used to it being customised heavily to suit their job. (Both have their advantages - someone used to using it OOTB will be more productive more quickly, whereas someone who can customise it may bring some very useful skills inbto your office. If they're used to it being customised though, be sure to ask if they did the customising or if they had someone at their last office who did all of the customising for them.)

Regarding the more personal questions about interests, hobbies, etc. - unless you are genuinely interested such things, or are actually concerned with how they might fit in with other staff in your office, then don't bother asking. In reality, it's little to no business of yours as an employer what your employees get up to on their own time, provided it's not an activity that may damage the reputation of your business. Of course if your office is one where many of the staff spend time together socially, then this may make the questions more appropriate. e.g. if the interviewee responds with "I'm into motorbike riding and stamp collecting." then you may (if you know your staff well) be able to say "Ah, a few of us have bikes, we try to get out for a ride together every month or two." No need for any more than that, but it will serve to set the interviewee at ease a little.

I guess mainly just keep in mind that the aim of an interview is to gauge suitability for the role from both a technical and social standpoint. If a person is technically very proficient, but also very arrogant then I'm not likely to hire them as I find such arrogance abhorrent - there would soon be a major clash between me and them so for me it would be best to avoid the situation in the first instance.

Also remember that the purpose of an interview is not to see how uncomfortable you can make the interviewee. I've seen people not turn up even when they got a second interview, because the first time around they felt the interviewer was so intimidating or condescending that they couldn't imagine themselves working in that environment.

Anyway, I hope that ramble helps somewhat.

Cheers,...Jon.

[gabecottam]

Please don't take this as a personal attack, because it's not intended as such, but Gabe you seem to be missing the point.

I don't purport to know how it is everywhere. I am only speaking from my own experience at several small engineering firms throughout the western U.S. But my point is that after every round of lay-offs I have seen, the #1 reason management choose the individuals who were let-go was exactly what we are talking about. No desire to move-up. They were often more experienced than some who stayed.

and I fully expect that most anyone else who shares this point of view and is happy to continue in the same role throughout their career, is also willing to accept the fact that they are never going to recieve the same salary as executive management.

I have seen some compensated at a lower rate than their peers. (with smaller raises over time). If someone wants to grow with your company, they present a greater future value and ought to be compensated as such.

I guess it depends on the philosophies of the management.

I recognize that not everyone feels this way. And not every company shares this philosophy. But companies with their eyes their eyes to the future want to train up their staff so that when they get to the future, there will be employees there to work.

Thanks for your thoughts Jon, I probably have missed the point because of my unique work experience. But from what I've seen - that's a bad mentality if you want to survive the next lay-offs.

[jguest]

But my point is that after every round of lay-offs I have seen, the #1 reason management choose the individuals who were let-go was exactly what we are talking about. No desire to move-up. They were often more experienced than some who stayed.

I don't doubt that what you say here is true, but I believe that what this shows is actually a lack of vision and understanding on behalf of management. I too have seen incompetent fools kept on for years beyond what they deserve, while experienced and highly conscientious operators who enjoy their work get quietly shoved out the back door. Just because it happens doesn't make it either smart or right.

What management often fails to realise is that in order to be the best the company can be, what they actually need are the most competent and experienced designers and draughters they can find and/or create. A desire to "move up" is only appropriate where the opportunities actually exist. If you are constantly pushing your designers to get into management roles then what you may end up with is a top heavy organisation with all of the work being done by the (relatively) inexperienced newcomers who were brought on to replace those who are now in management. As a result, quality often suffers in the same way that it does in a company that has management who are hard to work for - if the staff turnover rate is high the quality is often lower.

I have seen some compensated at a lower rate than their peers. (with smaller raises over time). If someone wants to grow with your company, they present a greater future value and ought to be compensated as such.

I guess it depends on the philosophies of the management.

This is true, and I've seen it as well. I think you've (perhaps unwittingly) pointed out the problem here though - 'Management Philosophy'. I feel that Management sometimes miss the difference between "Move Up" and "Grow", and because of this some of them assume that because designer Joe Bloggs has no desire to become a project manager or an office supervisor then he has no desire to 'grow with the company' so they fire him when next they can find an excuse. What they have failed to see is that over the five years that he has been with the company Joe has constantly been learning faster, better, and more efficient ways to be a great designer - because he loves being a designer and he can see that a project manager or office supervisor spends significantly less time designing.

Again, I see the 'Joe Bloggs' types as an assett, rather than the liabillity that they are viewed as all too often.

I recognize that not everyone feels this way. And not every company shares this philosophy. But companies with their eyes their eyes to the future want to train up their staff so that when they get to the future, there will be employees there to work.

After reading this comment I've realised that I've also probably somewhat missed, or at least slightly misunderstood, your point too. I think we're probably both trying to say similar things, but from different angles.

Of course I'm not saying that ambition is a bad thing. I am just saying that too often an ambition to be the best you can be in your chosen field, without necessarily wanting to climb the corporate ladder, is mistaken for a lack of ambition altogether. I would say though, that employees who show no interest in development of their skills, and no inclination to improve the way they work to be more effective and more efficient - these are the ones who should be at the top of the list if cutbacks and/or redundancies are on the cards.

Now, so as not to highjack this thread completely we should probably address the OP's question with regard to the topics we've been discussing. How about some interview questions about how the applicant views training and professional development? Would they intend to continue to study further in their field while working with you? Do they see this job as a career in itself? Or a stepping stone to bigger and better things for themselves? Also, you might be brave enough to ask what things they look for in a job? Or even what they expect in a manager/supervisor?

Those last couple of suggestions are not really going to tell you much about their suitability for the position (unless their answers are rather outlandish) but they may well tell you a bit about the character of the applicant - particularly if the applicant has several years of experience in the field already. I know that my answers to those questions a decade ago would have been very short and lacking in detail, but these days I could give a much clearer and more useful response.