For the first: I have interviewed dozens of applicants for a variety of positions (no Quality Managers, but many for positions in quality department(s).
I can't speak to the second question, except to say that during interviews my HR teammates often say "I like that question." It is a circumstance (competing priorities) that often presents itself (especially in a regulated industry), so it is not as if it is some hypothetical question. I can recall being asked many less sound job interview questions!
For measuring (non-technical) performance: I observe how an eventual hire behaves when confronted with this nearly precise circumstance. The ones who have meltdowns are judged somewhat harshly... after all, they were essentially warned about this circumstance during the interview process. If I am a peer or manager and I have a suspicion (based on the interview, or through observation) that they may not be able to handle this precise circumstance, I do what I can to make it easier for them. Inability to multi-task (or to otherwise be aware of multiple tasks) is not a disqualifying factor when ranking associates by level-of-performance, but having to hand-hold an associate (or deal with meltdowns) typically diminishes my perception of employee performance.
I see the interview as equally informative for the candidate, the team, and the manager. (less so for the recruiter)
Thank for replying.
To the first: I meant the sample of individuals who were asked that question during a job interview, then hired, then observed by you to gauge their performance. The number of candidates interviewed and NOT hired (or hired and not observed later) is irrelevant, because your interaction with them can't support the statement you made about the correlation between how they answered that question and their subsequent performance at the role.
To the second: I didn't think you'd be able to speak to it. It was more a thing to ponder with yourself. The fact that HR say they
like your question doesn't mean they really like it in the sense you think they do, and even if they do - what does it mean?... HR staff don't have special access to wisdom or humility. Theoretically they see more cases, but once again - is their analysis sound (do they even care?), and is their sample size
really big enough? In my experience, HR's exposure to the hiring lifecycle (cradle to grave) is superficial, since it typically focuses on the generic / soft skills aspects and can't properly factor in the technical / profession-specific ones, and it will thus always be biased.
Handling competing tasks rationally and as effectively as possible is a real (and common) challenge. Meeting it, however, is not always about the incumbent's personality / abilities (or anything else you think you're able to discern during a job interview). There are many disrupting factors that can trip even the most suitable/competent person, and sometimes sheer luck makes all the difference between getting away with it and a total disaster, regardless of planning and the best mitigating techniques. It's a stochastic universe.
On the other hand, asking/expecting someone to handle, without any "loss" or sacrifice, competing tasks which are ALL "top priority" (non negotiable) is a totally different thing. It's a hallmark of bad management and it's unfair. I also think it's borderline unfair to base hiring decisions on such a question in a job interview. What do you expect to hear?... Anything the candidate will say will be a fairytale, or a well-rehearsed BS. You want to know how they behave under grinding pressure? You want to know what their Fight or Flight behaviour looks like? You'll have to either have a very candid, elaborate conversation with their past peers (which you're hardly likely to ever get), or apply some other psychological (or pseudo-psychological) techniques that assess behaviour under extreme/unreasonable pressure, e.g. the ones used in military training. But please don't delude yourself that whatever you observe in a job interview has statistical significance.
To the third: Why the separation between "technical" and "non-technical"? When you hire someone, you want them to be successful in both - that's the only performance metric that matters. Succeeding in one, but not in the other, will in many cases be bad for the person, or the company, or both.
What's your definition of "meltdown"? Do you call it a meltdown when a team member lays out the facts to you, together with their rational analysis, and says "I'm sorry, but I think that there is no practical way to handle all those tasks in parallel, with no loss of any kind, because... <here they will highlight the inevitable clashes>. So either you choose what you are willing to sacrifice, or something random will get sacrificed without you deciding about it."? Is it a sign of "weakness" or incompetence?... I think that it's a sign of rationality, of staying calm under pressure, and above all - of courage, to tell it to the boss as it is (perhaps implying that the boss / upper management is acting unrealistic). Don't get me wrong, I'm all in for the "can-do" attitude; but sometimes the right thing to do is call it in. Sticking to the can-do attitude regardless of reality is just unintelligent.
There's a huge difference between "the ability to multi-task" (in reasonable settings) and the ability - and will - to routinely cope with irrational expectations from bad, stubborn managers (I'm not referring to anyone in specific here). I agree with you that a job interview can also be very informative for the candidate. I would steer clear of any QA/RA management position where the hiring manager implies that they often expect everything to be handled as "top priority", without any losses, regardless of any rational analysis. This is not bad management, it's just no-management.
