Comment by ellen364 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by ellen364 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I'm curious about this. When I've hired, I've always wondered how I can actually tell (a) what soft skills are required for the role and (b) whether a candidate has them.

People sometimes think that's a silly thing to ponder: it's obviously obvious! But at most places I've worked, we spend lots of time defining the technical skills required for a job and handwave the rest.

I guess people assume "they'll know it when they see it". But there's a lot of ambiguity. Parent comment suggests that being comfortable sitting in a conference room for an hour is an important part of their job. In some workplaces that would be an odd requirement. I've worked at places where the important thing was being able to go away and make progress on something for a few weeks.

I suspect there are people with autism reading these threads and feeling disheartened. It would be easy to leave with the impression that neurotypical people expect you to make all the effort and they won't try to meet you half way. Some workplaces are like that. But in all the talk about neurotypical vs neurodivergent, it's easy to forget that neurotypical people are a varied lot, just like neurodivergent people. Workplaces are a varied lot too.

As somebody with autism, one thing I'd say from my experience (I don't know how many people will agree) is that interviewing has felt like a much more severe stress test of my soft skills than anything I've had to do while actually being employed. While employed, the vast majority of my social interactions are oriented around some technical task that I need to work on with other people, and conveying information effectively so as to bring about the completion of this task. This is precisely the kind of social interaction that I feel most competent in--I feel like I'm pretty good at it, actually! What I struggle with are social interactions that are more open-ended, that are more about emotional connections and getting people to like you, and I feel like interviewing is an interaction of the latter type.

In this respect interviewing is a bit like LeetCode. LeetCode problems and writing code to satisfy business requirements are both "coding" but they're quite different kinds of coding; someone being able to do the former is probably good evidence they can do the latter, but there are also plenty of people who can do the latter without being able to do the former. So it is, in my view, with interviewing vs. interacting with people on the job.

> I've always wondered how I can actually tell (a) what soft skills are required for the role and (b) whether a candidate has them.

Being able to communicate clearly and interact with coworkers is the most basic soft skill required for most jobs.

Communicating clearly with coworkers is foundational to interviews because you have to communicate as part of the interview. Don't overthink it into something more complicated.

> being comfortable sitting in a conference room for an hour is an important part of their job. In some workplaces that would be an odd requirement.

I think you're taking it too literally. Being able to converse with coworkers in a conference room is an interview proxy for being able to communicate with coworkers on the job. You're not literally testing their ability to sit in a conference room, you just happen to be in a conference room because that's where the interview takes place.

The internet is always full of arguments that some people might be really bad at interviewing but great at the job. That's true to some degree, but in my experience a lot of the difficult behaviors that show up in the interview (poor communication, uncomfortable talking to coworkers, or even if someone is difficult to work with) don't disappear after those candidates are hired. People are usually trying their hardest during the interview to look good, so often those characteristics become worse, not better, once they're hired.

It's tough to discuss online because nobody likes to think about rejecting people for soft skills. We want to maintain this Platonic ideal of a programmer who creates brilliant code in a vacuum and nothing else matters, but in real jobs clear communication is really important.

I like this idea of making the soft skills explicit. Both to the interviewers and the candidate (i.e. in the job posting itself). This would save everyone involved a lot of time, too!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com