A kick in the but, a step forward, new opportunity, good luck, bad luck, call it as you like. In the end it is just an interview. It is only a defined period of time in which you have the opportunity to make a summary out of what you have learned. “No pressure ™”.
Now, what if you would be on the other side. One of the ones that listen and chose.
Exactly like in the dude from first paragraph, the dude from the second one has to use the skill set. Maybe on a deep thought it looks like the second would be in a more powerful position. My opinion is that they are both equal. I also think this is a correct mindset.
How to make that step? From person one to person two. What qualifies someone to be person two?
At this moment, with my QA profile, I only know three things. Listen, ask “how” and at the end ask “why”. Those three actions served me well for the last period.
Having the masterplan let’s proceed to picking up a methodology.
First we need to understand the acceptance criteria for this task. What it is required of us, what are the input parameters and what it is the desired outcome. This should allow us to crate a feature related scenario. So far so great. Next step.
Second we should identify our input. In a more programmatic approach we would call those optional parameters. If they are provided, use them for relevant outcome, if not they are supported by the feature anyway. Here, the scope changes. The recruiter is the feature within a feature. This calls for abstraction.
Third comes the prioritization. Those inputs should be assigned some values in order to determine the best mathematical outcome.
In theory QA should be able to use their expertise in order to hire people.