Again, this is pretty subjective. I find people who do these things being very bad communicator because they can talk only to entry level people. Most of the speech in any conference around the world are just simple stuff that can be condensed in an hour. Usually you could do the same in a 10 minutes session if you are targeting a more skilled audience
Also I had experience on working and organizing team of people and I would really point out that is super hard to get people to work together doesn't matter what. There are people who hate each other and can't work together and some that dick head that get along well.
So what I do I just skip the soft skills section in the first place. What I find it useful is scenario base question like: last time you had a conflict in your team how did you handle that. You can understand a good communicator much better in this way than claiming to have experience at speaking on random conference (communication has much more to do with being able to empathize with the other person's point of view rather than keep pushing through your own idea with very nice pointless words)
My experience is almost diametrically opposite on the first few things.
> Most of the speech in any conference around the world are just simple stuff that can be condensed in an hour
I have found that in majority of technical talks, an hour is thoroughly insufficient to convey everything in detail. This means, a good talk requires days of preparation, careful understanding of the critical aspects of the subject matter and building a narrative that joins all of them seamlessly.
It is incredibly difficult.
> Usually you could do the same in a 10 minutes session if you are targeting a more skilled audience
In my experience, 10 minutes is only good for elevator pitches. To take away anything of technical values, it usually takes 60 minutes or more.
> that is super hard to get people to work together doesn't matter what
That's why my mentioned running clubs/committees or being deeply involved a team sport. Those exact same dynamics manifest in the 2 scenarios and the skills obtained form there are to some degree, transferable to industry.
> What I find it useful is scenario base question like: last time you had a conflict in your team how did you handle that
I love these kinds of questions. Not because they always reveal anything important, but they play to the strengths of a good story teller.
Most people at this point, practice these questions just like leetcode. The interviewee doesn't answer your question, they fetch a meticulously crafted and appropriately fictionalized account of a past event, and the interviewer is none the wiser.
I'd just not reply to everything to avoid a infinite loop but I like your last point:
> Most people at this point, practice these questions just like leetcode
This is a valid point and as you mentioned is true also for hard skills (eg. Algo prep with leet code). But at one point the question would be: would you rather hire someone that showed dedication for the job to the point that spent weeks/months to prepare leet code or possible other interview questions or someone that perhaps performed worst during the interview?
Most of the time you can always find out who is just memorizing everything by asking follow-up questions (both for technical and non technical questions) and as I guess you know (there's plenty info on the web) you can find books on how to crack any interview
Also I had experience on working and organizing team of people and I would really point out that is super hard to get people to work together doesn't matter what. There are people who hate each other and can't work together and some that dick head that get along well.
So what I do I just skip the soft skills section in the first place. What I find it useful is scenario base question like: last time you had a conflict in your team how did you handle that. You can understand a good communicator much better in this way than claiming to have experience at speaking on random conference (communication has much more to do with being able to empathize with the other person's point of view rather than keep pushing through your own idea with very nice pointless words)