|
Reader, Steven here. So, let's talk tech assessments. I was recently on the hunt for a new job thanks to my previous employer making some questionable business decisions in 2025. One of the first interviews I got was for a "field service management SaaS" company. AKA, they serve landscaper business owners who need help managing their operations. (No names 😉) But you're here because you want to know what their tech assessment looked like. It was a 2-parter: 1. Playwright expertise (refactor a shitty Playwright test to show you know what "good" looks like)
2. AI familiarity
What the heck's "AI familiarity", you ask? Yeah... In this client's view, it meant: Can the candidate translate a Page Object Model class file from Java to TypeScript using AI tools? Here is a boiled-down list I took from the req (they've since filled it, but I found the deets on a Glassdoor posting that's still up) of the skills they demand for this role:
Alrighty, let's see how the task maps to the req... ✅ Playwright test refactor -- Playwright ✅ Page Object Model class file migration -- Page Object Model ⚠️ Migrate from Java to TypeScript -- TypeScript?? From where I'm sitting, Java-TypeScript migration was a weird choice for testing candidates AI skills. You might find it interesting that the team laughed when talking about Java, saying it was a tool that belongs in the early 2000s. In other words, they wouldn't be caught dead using Java on their team. When I asked them if they were migrating from Java currently, they said no. It was a TypeScript shop. So why test candidates on migrating from Java? Not to mention the untested skills in the req: ❌ CI / CD ❌ Test Plans ❌ Exploratory Testing ❌ Flutter exposure (bonus, but still...) Long story short, I'm not a Java guy, so you probably know how that last part went. It didn't help that they only gave me like 7 minutes to do it at the end of the call. The overall point is this: When an assessment doesn’t measure what it’s supposed to, it’s misaligned and ultimately, it’s a poor-quality assessment. This happens far too often in hiring. Make sure your manager has aligned their test to test the skills required for the role. What good does it do to source, recruit and put up ace players when they ultimately get nixed for an assessment that does not make sense. You will find yourself back at square one, and for no good reason. It doesn't matter if your manager "is technical" or "comes from an engineering background". You still need to take the time to review and advise. These managers? They're good. They're really good at what they do. But remind yourself that these folks spend less than 10% of their time hiring and it does not go down as a favorite activity. So be good at what you do. Your job is to control the process, In Part 2, we'll talk about how to make this assessment better. Cheers, Steven |
Helping tech recruiters vet client requirements and job candidates for technical roles by blending 20+ years of Engineering & Recruiting experience.
Reader, PART TWO · WHAT YOU SHOULD DO How to get real information and use it Here’s the shift: stop treating the recruiter call as a formality and start treating it as an intelligence operation. You have more leverage than you think if you ask the right questions. okay, maybe not like this The goal is to figure out what the actual deal is: what the company thinks they need vs. what they realistically need whether you’re a real fit how to talk to the specific manager you’re about to meet Ask...
Reader, PART ONE · RECRUITER CONFESSIONS Here’s what’s actually happening on our end Let me be honest with you about something the industry doesn’t like to admit out loud. By the time a job gets posted and you apply, a lot of things that should have been figured out, haven’t been. Roles change mid-process all the time. Budget shifts. Leadership realizes they don’t actually agree on what success looks like. Someone internally gets considered after the requisition is already open. Or there are...
Reader, On Monday we covered who to contact and when. You did the work, found the right recruiter and team. Now what? Let’s talk about the message itself. I read a lot of outreach. And I'll be direct: most of it sounds the same. Not because the people sending it are bad candidates, but because they're following an outdated professional template that signals "I didn't really think about this." I’m guilty of it myself. I have looked back and read outreach for sales activity I’ve done and...