Talent

One word : Juggling.

Sorry, I know you're serious and it is a good question. When I've interviewed successful candidates I was always most impressed by their ability to think on their feet, to spontaneously adapt.

Great question.

Don't know that "talent" actually is what people look for in a job interview.

Do you actually have any talent? Is it a work-related talent that an employer may find useful? (note qualifications and experience are not a talent).

Can you explain a bit more regarding the reasons behind your question. I am guessing you are not asking what the best time is during an interview to whip out a unicycle to impress a prospective employer.

Yeah, that's the ticket, listen carefully while juggling on a unicycle to put the interviewer at ease!

ga from me

Ahuha!!

Easy, take example of your work, or pictures, to show if needed.
I've interviewed loads of graduates who couldn't tell me even one thing they had ever made...hopeless. These were guys coming for a mechanicl design eng job, and the couldn't even say they'd stripped down engines when they were kids!
Even if the stuff isn't strickly job related it will help, remember you've got to make yourself stand out from the crowd.
Del

wow ....like me no body in this forum says talent is the studies and work related stuff mostly they follow the soft skills. yes it is true I believe the bottom line of talent is purely soft skills.

Jeeva

My very first job interview went like this:

I arrived 10 minutes early. Unfortunately, everyone else seemed to have arrived 30 minutes early so I was the last one on the chopping block. I got more tense as each candidate got called until I felt feverish when I was the only one left.

The manager called me in finally and asked me a several questions, all of which I had no trouble answering. The only trouble was, I found a resistor on his desk which I started to fiddle around with as I talked. A few moments later, I spied my interviewer looking at my fingers as I twiddled the resistor. I immediately let go of it (a little too energetically) and it tumbled its way around his desk for what seemed to be eternity.

I wasn't hired.

In my next interview, I was a lot more confident. I must have been impressive because I had four interviews while the rest had one or two. Finally, it was down to just two of us. My co-applicant casually mentioned that the manager was a fraternity brother of his and had obtained a promise that he would be hired. I didn't mind him but then I got knocked off when the final interviewer said that I was too skinny for the job.

You always hear or read tips that will help you ace a job interview. In the first attempt, I lost because I was too nervous and showed it. In the second, I performed well but politics got in the way. In succeeding job interviews, I maintained my confident demeanor and answered the questions as truthfully and sensibly as I can. I always got hired.

regards,

Vulcan

It depends what kind of talent you have.If you can not actually show demo then you can display it by only talking. During talking you should be peaceful, confident,and relaxed.

Suresh Sharma

And Patricia a shows her engineering talent by making the participation in the interview a PROCESS!!:

"A more elaborate answer would be to say you have skill1, because your manner of thinking is likethis (a small description) and in that situation you acted likethat (a real life example). You also have skill2, that you developed in thisway during a project and that was useful for thisjobactivity in thatway. etc etc

Meaning create a structure of reasons and examples that lead to the conclusion of you having talent, and then just present that structure."

In other words, Have a process.

Great advice!

milo

Remindes me of a guy that comes in for a job interview... "What can you do" asks the interviewer, "I can imitate birds" answers the guy. Well, says the interviewer, "Not impressing enough..." " "Sorry," says the guy, that's all I know," and flys out the window... Do this, and the job is yours.

A very good question; First off, do some research into the company you wish to work for and taylor your talent (if any) toward that companies goals. Don't be overly talkative. Make eye to eye contact. I know you will be nervous, but try to appear calm by not fidgeting or not looking disinterested. Don't give the impression that you wish the interview was over quickly. If you give that impression, the interview is over. It also depends on who the interviewer is. Some companies have "generic" interviewers, that is someone who is not familiar with technical aspects of the job. Their job is to screen out potential new hires so demonstrating a talent should be aimed toward a more basic value, like mastery of the language or your ability to motivate others as an example. On the other hand if the interview is conducted by a section or department head who knows the technical end of the product, then your talent besides being as previously noted, might also include tasks of a technical nature that demonstrates your expertise. One talent I used on an interview was stating I build live steam engines as a hobby. Although not many can make that claim, it demonstrates the ability to use tools, make precision measurements and an overall understanding of the engineering process.

If you have a special talent that you think might impress an interviewer, try to taylor it toward that companies product or goal.

well a good interviewer would ask you how you would solve a simple engineering problem and would take notice how you would do it.

Here I would like to narrate an interview of (now) owner of big hotel chains in India (Vitthal Kamat)

During his internship, he appeared for an interview, where interviewer asked him if he would like a single difficult question or many simple questions. Vitthal opted for single difficult question.

Interviewer asked: Egg first or Chicken first?

Vitthal replied: Egg first.

Interviewer asked "How?"

Vitthal immediately responded: This is second question!

Story is self explanatory.

If you have talent, it will get demonstrated.

Besides, instead of answering interviewers questions, make interviewer to ask the questions, which you prefer. This is the skill which I used in all my interviews successfully.

I said in my earlier post that if you have talent, it will get demonstrated.

Here are few questions and answers in India's Union Public Service Commission... one of the great examinations for selection of top ranking public servants. You can surely appreciate the intelligence of the candidates:

Q. How can you drop a raw egg onto a concrete floor without cracking it?
A. Concrete floors are very hard to crack! (UPSC Topper)

Q.If it took eight men ten hours to build a wall, how long would it take four men to build it?
A. No time at all it is already built. (UPSC 23 rd Rank Opted for IFS)

Q.If you had three apples and four oranges in one hand and four apples and three oranges in the other hand, what would you have?
A. Very large hands.(Good one) (UPSC 11 Rank Opted for IPS)

Q. How can you lift an elephant with one hand?
A. It is not a problem, since you will never find an elephant with one hand. (UPSC Rank 14 Opted for IES)

Q. How can a man go eight days without sleep?
A. No Probs, He sleeps at night. (UPSC IAS Rank 98)

Q. If you throw a red stone into the blue sea what it will become?
A. It will Wet or Sink as simple as that. (UPSC IAS Rank 2)

Q. What looks like half apple?
A : The other half. (UPSC - IAS Topper )


Q. What happened when wheel was invented?
A : It caused a revolution.

Q. Bay of Bengal is in which state?
A : Liquid

Well, that certainly explains some of the cultural differences in working across continents. The questions are designed to encourage what Europeans regard as schoolboy humour (or Americans would call "smart-arse" answers). "Success" in answering doubtless provides an armour against the vicissitudes of an over-hierarchical working environment, and (once you are aware of the rules of engagement) failure might indicate a woeful lack of imagination; in that respect it could be useful in rejecting the hopeless - but failure can also indicate a distaste for adolescent humour and for task-avoidance, so the test could be counter-productive if your intent is to select constructive team-players.

Personally, I will not use any of these questions, and will continue to reject anyone who gives more than one similar answer during my interviews (given that I indicate that I am after a more practically-based response).

You are right in your way.

But this is called occult thinking.

You know the story of Neil Bohr and XXXX (I do not remember) of measuring the height of the building using barometer. (This is not a story from Asian continent... depicting cultural difference) .... (The story may not have actually happened... but is very interesting)

All the replies in that story also can be certainly discounted to the humours. But the humour also needs great intelligence.

If you do not know the story, please let me know, I will narrate it for you.

Bohr probably assumed that a reasonably accurate method was needed.

Using the barometric method, that you would not only need to know the pressures at both heights quite accurately, but also the temperature (and possibly the humidity as well). So additional equipment is needed. Accuracy will be further degraded (cf. Bernoulli) if there is wind, rain (or even convection), so you would need to choose your early morning.

If you are going to provide additional equipment, a piece of fishing line and a ruler would do the job (don't forget to measre the change in line length when supporting the barometer). That is a good experimentalist's approach (the simplest effective method). But it too could be problematical if there is wind or rain, although it is resistant to convection.

Bohr's even simpler approach to determining the building height is to ask the building curator - possibly offering to trade the barometer if that is in your power. Bohr added this after his more physics-based proposals, which is understandable in the circumstances. But it is not an acceptable solution to the problem as you have posed it (measure the height of the building). It also risks perpetuating pre-existing errors (the curator probably has no real reason to check the exact height, so is probably working from plans which may have not have been followed rigidly during construction).

Text-book answers might include "I wouldn't", or "I would use the scale on the side of the barometer as part of a triangulation measurement". I don't believe that Bohr included those in his final version - he probably felt he had made his point.

My final comment is that, unlike the exemplary answers in your posting, all Bohr's solutions go some way to solving a potentially genuine problem - and most (though not all) of them were capable of better accuracy than the expected response.

P.S. On the subject of "occult thinking". If you google "occult thinking", you will find that sociologists observe it to be predominant amongst conspiracy theorists and practitioners of cult religions. Now, I appreciate that sociology is not highly regarded in scientific/engineering circles, but could there be merit in their observations.

My view: an awareness of occult thinking and the ability to anticipate it and its consequences may well be useful. The form you cite* is well established among juveniles, and is largely used as a social release-valve. But its application has little merit in solving any sort of not-immediately-social-interaction problem, be it in the field of town planning, economics, or even (heaven forfend) in engineering or scientific endeavour.

*More usually classified as "avoidance"

• Can this person do the work?
• Will this person do the work?
• Will this person fit the organisation?

And the most important of these is :

• Will this person fit the organisation? Most folks can be trained to "do" the work. Many can somehow be motivated to do the work through various means. But if the person is not a good fit to the culture, those above won't matter. I think that you are 'spot on, PW. milo

"Most people can be trained to do the work".
Remember the phrase "horses for courses". You wouldn't try to take a shire horse over a set of jumps.

If I need an analytical designer, I need to hire someone with analytic talent, even if the experience is not directly relevant. And my interview will attempt to establish this (so pity the poor interviewee). But in that role I don't necessarily need exceptional social skills, and I will not worry about a measure of nervousness.

It you are the interviewee, it is probably better to recognise early on if a role is unlikely to suit you - stating the fact and asking if there are other roles that would be a better match could also be seen as a strength.

Agreed and good advice you are giving.

in my original post, #4, I disclaimed hiring for specific talents per se in most cases, so your 'horses for courses' is right on. If I need to hire a board certifed ______ (Well, any thing), if you ain't board certified, it doesn't matter what your soft skills are or how Talented you appear in the interview.

Your putting the onus on the interviewee to correctly adjudge his fit to the position is valid, but when folks are laid off and see $ signs (or pound sterling signs or euro signs or...) their ability to make a 'wise' decision might be a wee bit compromised.

I agree with you.

I still maintain, though, that even talented people will be declined in an interview situation, and so in an interview, having prepared, listening, and understanding who bears the risk and helping the interviewer understand how it is that you will not be that risk if you are chosen will be more important than showing how bright a bulb one is.

thanks for the thoughtful engagement!

I hope that you sign up for our forum, your contribution to this thread is well received.

milo

milo

Do your homework before you go & find out about the company. They will ask engineering questions but if you can answer them in the context of their industry it will carry more weight.

It's hard not to be nervous but if you can answer without stumbling it will make it appear that you understand the question. At the same time you don't want to rush the answer or it will seem that you have put no thought into it.

Unfortunately most interviewers have no training in conducting interviews so it can be a hit or miss affair, you have to very quickly judge what the interviewer is trying to get out of you.

SONNYBRAKES,

Your post seems seeking effective presentation of a candidate being interviewed towards impressing on one's talents.My post is meant for panel as well as the candidate.

As regard to the interviewers, specific problems faced, related questions, a technical panel, aptitudes of required job proficiency are of critical importance.The criteria for evaluation could be understanding capacity of the candidate, analytical skills, possible feed back of relevant problems and solutions adapted, awareness, critical thinking, spontaneity, past knowledge demonstrated and good communication skills and fluency are decisive factors.

Well ,coming to the candidate's part,

*Be honest and don't present over confidence.

*Use the right body language.

*Be simple in convincing politely about your knowledge or talent and express only your involved interest and certainly not a comparison with others[statements like nobody could do, only I could etc] and be submissive.

*Don't be aggressive or arrogant and express superiority complex.

*A silent guy is best preferred than a boasting guy-the committee can sense your talent by few words of expression and based on your matured presentation.

*Sense the pulses of the panel members and never argue or hurt their views- say, 'yeah, it is a good idea, and I feel we can think of this point also ".

*Produce evidence of talent and past achievements and don't lay over emphasis.

*The experienced panel could judge the genuinity of your stuff

*Impress that your talents, view points and wave lengths match to the panel and employer.

*Talent at what cost, you got to be careful and make them commit and make no lavish greedy demands.

don't present over confidence

I remembered a story of one of my senior colleague. He was interviewed for defence services and passed all examinations. The oral interview also was very fine. Still he was rejected.

He dared to ask the reason for rejection.

Interviewer told : "In army, we need brain, ..... but not this much!"

Sounds like someone feared competition.

Reminds me of the Duke of Wellington (or possibly Helmuth Karl Bernhard): "There are four types of young officer. The stupid and lazy ones you can forget about: either the enemy or their own men will dispose of them. The intelligent and lazy will stay out of harm's way; pay them no attention. Then we have the intelligent, energetic type: beware, they will want your position. Finally, there are the stupid, energetic ones: it is your job to take them out and shoot them before they ruin everything."

For one - by never mentioning the word, talent, whether in writing or orally, in the job interview. By this means you demonstrate the capability known as experience (you're savvy enough to have learned the inappropriateness of "talent" in an engineering organizational enviroment)...and the absense of naivete shown by thoughtless use of the "t" word.