elizabeth grigg - the other fourth meal

I'd like to propose a couple of general rules about interviewing at Microsoft, of which there are many exceptions I'm sure.

Rule #1: The Inevitable Hire
For some people, getting a job offer at Microsoft is like falling out of bed. They may have been a little worried about the interview, but they pull through and accept an offer like it has been waiting for them all along. Reasons for this are more than just technical, design, or people skills. Lots of time the personality of the inevitable hire comes across as someone who has an immediate match with the interviewer's perspective. It would be obvious to the interviewer how that person would add to that mission. For the interviewer, a "hire" on this candidate would mean that their specific goals would more likely be met this year. It would not mean a change or reassesment of those goals.

Rule #2: The Tooth and Nail Hire
Other people seem like an odd match for Microsoft from the get go. They have enough on their resume to get them in the door, as well as passion for the industry, but a contrarian nature and their own idea of how to get things done. They don't always bring up process or technical examples of how to solve a problem in an interview, sometimes it is a matter of analyzing the past and coming at it from a whole new way. They won't just take the team mission like a horse pill, they'll question it the whole time, although some of these candidates can be tactful and know when to initiate changes. For an interviewer to mark this candidate as a hire, they would need to be in the position where they want to groom strong leadership, even if this means abandoning some short term goals.

Controversy: What's best for Microsoft?
I have no numbers to back up either of these trends. All I know is that the inevitable hires, as a rule, do not know what to do with themselves once a problem comes up that the team is new to solving. They have no way of aligning their idea of safety and complacency with the opposing concept that they'd better come out with a new plan and soon in order to react to this (in my opinion fascinating) industry. On the other hand, when you need a tough choice, or strong analysis, the tooth and nail hire is a much better ally. After all, they worked like the dickens to get there. They worked like the dickens to prove they had the technical, design, and people skills to make it. They didn't just get this easy, they wanted it forever. Complacency is unknown to them. And the sad fact is, these folks have a hard time getting hired.

Potential Solutions:
Without validating my claims, of course, it's hard to take this seriously enough to come up with a plan. However, it would be a big help if HR did the following:
1) Posted the "level" of the job description with the job, so those with less measurable skills can decide for themselves whether it's worth applying.
2) Post the "career paths at Microsoft" information, so that an applicant who is really motivated can incorporate this into their medium term plans. For example, if all Program Managers need to be C# MVPs, that's great to know. (probably not true by the way)
3) Encourage interviewers to set the team's immediate goals aside when assessing a candidate. Encourage them to set their own goals aside. What person has the leadership to help the team over the next transition/reorg/market change?
4) If a candidate is marked as a "no hire" overall, and there were some promising "hires" in the mix, stay with the candidate. Don't just say you will, don't say "it's the candidate's responsibility to be the squeaky wheel." A candidate who has been turned down (the good ones, the polite ones) are not likely to mail the poor recruiter every week. They have, however, proven they can interview successfully, have the passion to work there, and the skills to get in the door. Isn't this worth following up?

I'm very grateful to Zoe and Gretchen for starting their jobsblog, and hope this is a portent of things to come.