I once visited (interviewed) with a design Principal at HOK in St. Louis in search of a design position. Having done plenty of interviews with job applicants myself I was not prepared for what finally was revealed to me as his approach to finding architects/designers who would be the right people to help his company achieve what he felt were very high goals for the quality of the designs they produced.
In architecture, the portfolio has almost mythic status in its ability to represent an applicant's skills, talents, and experience. Everyone carries their work with them in portfolios of all kinds, many handmade with loving care representing the architect's care in every detail. Interviews are spent with the interviewer pouring over the pages of the portfolio, sometimes for over an hour, soaking in what is usually a representation of a variety of projects, drawings, models painstakingly presented, page by page...
He, didn't want to see my portfolio. Not at all.
We talked. I wondered. We talked some more. Two hours passed.
Finally he revealed to me his strategy. Never look at a person's portfolio the first interview. Save that for the second interview, or the third. Focus on one thing and one thing only. Use the conversation to determine if this person has the "will" to do great design. Period.
In his opinion, skill sets, can be improved with training and experience. But if the candidate doesn't have the will to do great design, none of the rest matters...
Think he's right? Or can we believe that people can evolve over time and through their experiences see new paths to their contribution to design that they simply couldn't see before? And through this new "sight" could they become more confident and emboldened to work harder at creating great things?
Recent Comments