You can't really quantify attributes like curiosity, ability to learn and ability to listen so it's difficult to interview for them without having all kinds of biases sneak in.
Quantifying it is hard for sure, but some sample questions I've used in the past:
1. (Curiosity) How do you keep up to date with tech? Then explore something recent they started playing with and how they found it.
2. (Ability to learn) Ask about past failures, what they thought went wrong and what they'd do next time. If that's a bit harsh, ask what they'd change about their last major project.
3. (Ability to listen) For me this is about how they work with others, so probe for areas of friction they've had, particularly with people outside their immediate team.
You can't discount bias, but you get a baseline over a few interviews and can go from there. It's worth pointing out that all of these are soft skills, and quantifying those is always hard. Sometimes you've just got to trust your gut. It also helps if you've spent time working in a customer focused job, because you tend to be better at spotting egregious personality flaws.
"Curiosity" is a weird trait to gauge, because the person might be completely exhausted and fatigued by the ever-shifting quicksand of the tech world, but still be extremely curious about things outside of their job, such as their hobbies.
For example, I have recently started doing a lot of cooking and bread baking, and I've watched hundreds of youtube videos about those topics (which I could argue demonstrates curiosity), but I still haven't bothered to learn React or Angular because I barely have to deal with javascript in my current job, and where I do, jQuery usually works just fine for my limited needs.
When employers say they want someone who is "curious", what they are really saying is they want someone who is willing to spend all their personal time self-educating on programming topics, effectively making themselves more valuable from an employment perspective. The employer, of course, is rarely eager to actually allocate "learning time" during normal business hours, and is rarely willing to give you a meaningful raise when you actually have self-educated on your own time.
I really wish more companies actually TRAINED their employees DURING BUSINESS HOURS instead of just trying to hire "curious" people.
"Curiosity" has caused me to try to get more involved in business meetings/decisions, but that's often not the 'curiosity' tech managers want. As you say, they want people who are 'curious' about new tech and will learn in their personal time.
I've done this for decades, and there's a degree of regret about how much time I've spent 'learning' and 'being curious'. Not a huge regret, but... it's help reduce the need to dive in to some things altogether. But.. that comes across as "not interested in learning" to some people. No... I can usually just tell after a quick skim if there's going to be business value in tech X. We don't need to spend weeks prototyping something that is obviously not a fit... unless... we're doing this for show, or politics, or something else. If that's the case, just say "we're using X" not "let's investigate X to see if it can meet our needs".
Good on you for having non-tech hobbies. I doodle on guitar, and am 'curious' about that, but it's not going to land me any tech jobs. :)
Companies should definitely train their employees during business hours but there’s people actually wanting to spend most waking free hours learning about programming topics. Those people are usually some of the best in their field. I am not advocating for extreme narrowness of interest. A “T” shaped skillset is possibly the best.
> can't really quantify attributes like curiosity, ability to learn and ability to listen
You can get a feel for it... ask about personal projects, then follow-up on why. The best candidates will cop to "I wanted to check out the new tech (curiosity)", "I wanted to learn the new programming language (learning)".
Listening is a little bit more difficult to quantify, but we're mostly looking at people who know how to follow the flow of a conversation (a good friend once told me it's like a battle, their side shoots a little bit, we shoot a little bit back and back and forth)
Edit: Some people don't have personal projects and that's fine, you can ask what they would like to learn or if they want to learn something. Someone who just rolls in to write some code for a paycheck is perfectly fine but if someone has a desire to learn something, it's a good trailing indicator.
Having been on both ends of the income spectrum over the years, I am convinced that curiosity/side-project questions are simple proxies for financial stability rather than anything deeper. The only people who will have the time & energy to do such things are ones whose more prosaic needs have been met. FWIW.
True, it can be a proxy for it but even the desire to want a personal project (it's not a side project, it's not a hussle check) implies the person sees the development field as more than just a paycheck.
Someone seeing the field as just a paycheck will often cease to want to improve themselves, take new challenges and other desired traits.
Sadly, some of these conversations do devolve into some weird eugenics-like items....
It seems like a fool's errand to me to stamp out 100% of bias. Any bar that requires subjective assessment creates an opening for bias, and not every job can be assessed entirely by a completely mechanical rubric.
This is what things like representation are for, as they attack the problem for a different angle.
Usually the qualities that matter most cannot be quantified (un)fortunately... One way to combat this is to have the interviewing team consist of people with different backgrounds. For example, if you want to hire more women, it probably makes sense to have women involved as interviewers for all candidates. If you don't have the ability to do this, then I'm not sure what the solution is.
1. (Curiosity) How do you keep up to date with tech? Then explore something recent they started playing with and how they found it.
2. (Ability to learn) Ask about past failures, what they thought went wrong and what they'd do next time. If that's a bit harsh, ask what they'd change about their last major project.
3. (Ability to listen) For me this is about how they work with others, so probe for areas of friction they've had, particularly with people outside their immediate team.
You can't discount bias, but you get a baseline over a few interviews and can go from there. It's worth pointing out that all of these are soft skills, and quantifying those is always hard. Sometimes you've just got to trust your gut. It also helps if you've spent time working in a customer focused job, because you tend to be better at spotting egregious personality flaws.