FAANG hiring managers share how to answer behavioral interview questions(beseen.com)
beseen.com
FAANG hiring managers share how to answer behavioral interview questions
https://www.beseen.com/blog/talent/faang-managers-answer-interview-questions/
68 comments
> As someone who has social anxiety and depression I don't think I can be honest with a lot of these questions.
You’re not supposed to be honest. No one expects you to be honest. Everyone knows everyone knows it’s a game. It’s like the algorithm and data structure interview; it shows preparation and intelligence to be able to answer the questions well, whether your answers are based on a real event or pure fiction. If you can pretend to be a fantastic hire with lots of preparation there’s a reasonable chance you can actually show decent judgment if hired.
You’re not supposed to be honest. No one expects you to be honest. Everyone knows everyone knows it’s a game. It’s like the algorithm and data structure interview; it shows preparation and intelligence to be able to answer the questions well, whether your answers are based on a real event or pure fiction. If you can pretend to be a fantastic hire with lots of preparation there’s a reasonable chance you can actually show decent judgment if hired.
Yet managers, advice columns and books keep spouting the "honest" part. But I guess if one believes those columns one is too naive and therefore not qualified for the job.
It is actually a bit similar when girls say they want a "sweet, nice and caring" guy. But there are people who think they should follow those rules, fail and become resentful towards society for teaching them wrong things. This is just an observation.
It is actually a bit similar when girls say they want a "sweet, nice and caring" guy. But there are people who think they should follow those rules, fail and become resentful towards society for teaching them wrong things. This is just an observation.
Ignore barry-cotter. People do expect you to be honest. It's not a trick question, and there is no clandestine cabal of hiring managers who only want to hire people who play a secret interview game well.
> It is actually a bit similar when girls say they want a "sweet, nice and caring" guy.
In my experience, many women really do want nice, sweet, caring guys. It's just easy for men to think those are the only traits that matter, and that it's also fine to be timid, boring, insecure, clingy, and passive.
> It is actually a bit similar when girls say they want a "sweet, nice and caring" guy.
In my experience, many women really do want nice, sweet, caring guys. It's just easy for men to think those are the only traits that matter, and that it's also fine to be timid, boring, insecure, clingy, and passive.
Also in the end there are probably different types of managers. Some expect honesty, some don't. Some are optimistic about humankind, some not and others in-between. All of those types can provide value though.
I think it also shows the importance of soft skills. There's been a couple times where I've had disagreements with my team leadership, or senior management. I could make statements about why I thought I had made reasonable decisions. But honestly I would admit that those situations wouldn't have been as serious if I had communicated differently. So at the very least I've learned where overcommunication might be important.
They do want, it is mainly that this is what they keep talking about so it is easy to misunderstand that this is all you have to be.
What they are really attracted to is confidence and often during teenage years and beginning of 20s as well, people who don't give a shit about anyone or anything are the most confident. Hence what happens is the girls are with those confident guys and guys who try to have the traits girls talk about are not. It is not easy to realize this if what you keep hearing from girls, media and films about what they look for in a man.
But actually we are not disagreeing.
This is why it fits with the honest criteria well as it is not clearly so black and white.
What they are really attracted to is confidence and often during teenage years and beginning of 20s as well, people who don't give a shit about anyone or anything are the most confident. Hence what happens is the girls are with those confident guys and guys who try to have the traits girls talk about are not. It is not easy to realize this if what you keep hearing from girls, media and films about what they look for in a man.
But actually we are not disagreeing.
This is why it fits with the honest criteria well as it is not clearly so black and white.
I think it's confirmation bias. If you lack confidence but consider yourself nice and caring, then you'll be more on the look out for instances of women saying that's what they want. It's more comforting to hear that, because it means you're just fine, you don't have to change, and it's the world that's unfair.
But let's say you don't have that bias and instead you're taking in ALL the evidence from society, film, books, etc... Well, then it's pretty damn obvious that women tend to like confident men. Look at the hero of pretty much every movie ever. Look at the popular guys in high school and college. The evidence is overwhelming.
Men and women alike want partners who make them feel special. Part of that is how you're treated by that person, sure, but part of it is how "valuable" that person is themselves. My dog can worship the ground I walk on, but at the end of the day he's still just a dog so it doesn't mean much :)
But let's say you don't have that bias and instead you're taking in ALL the evidence from society, film, books, etc... Well, then it's pretty damn obvious that women tend to like confident men. Look at the hero of pretty much every movie ever. Look at the popular guys in high school and college. The evidence is overwhelming.
Men and women alike want partners who make them feel special. Part of that is how you're treated by that person, sure, but part of it is how "valuable" that person is themselves. My dog can worship the ground I walk on, but at the end of the day he's still just a dog so it doesn't mean much :)
Agreed. I ask it to see just how honest they are. I once had a female candidate say they undercut an employee because they were afraid they would take her job. I still hired her, especially because of that answer, and she worked out great.
This. You're an actor, and this is your audition. Can you play the part of a sane, reliable person that they can trust not to rock the boat? If you're assigned to a doomed project, are you going to trumpet that fact, or say salute and start digging?
I can sympathize. But learn to lie without seeming to.
I can sympathize. But learn to lie without seeming to.
If you have a firm background and not depending on the job to save you from death by hunger, then you can enjoy the luxury of being honest.
Interestingly, being honest will make you bold and empower to ask questions about sensitive issues you really care about in a job.
Interestingly, being honest will make you bold and empower to ask questions about sensitive issues you really care about in a job.
Yeah one of my biggest goals is to have "fuck you" retiring money. I wonder if this will drop my anxiety.
I have enough for 6 months for now, but it is not enough. I definitely need to be set for life to not feel that anxiety.
I have enough for 6 months for now, but it is not enough. I definitely need to be set for life to not feel that anxiety.
>No one expects you to be honest.
From OP:
>What’s your weakness?
>“Please don’t take the Michael Scott approach and turn this into a backhanded compliment (‘My biggest weakness is that I care too much’). I’d highly recommend giving an honest answer, and one that is as specific as possible and not handwavy.
Some people believe in this B.S.
From OP:
>What’s your weakness?
>“Please don’t take the Michael Scott approach and turn this into a backhanded compliment (‘My biggest weakness is that I care too much’). I’d highly recommend giving an honest answer, and one that is as specific as possible and not handwavy.
Some people believe in this B.S.
I remember the quote by Michael Scott when he said that sometimes he starts the sentence unsure of what he is going to say and that he hopes to find out along the way.
I can definitely relate to this one during interviews. Especially since it is recommended not to pause and think for too long.
It is actually quite often I can relate to Mr. Scott I can't help but to feel entirely sympathetic towards him.
It is actually quite often I can relate to Mr. Scott I can't help but to feel entirely sympathetic towards him.
What you do with your mouth or your typing fingers is much less revealing of what you believe than what you do. Revealed preference is king.
Totally agree! You should be clinically insane to give honest answers to those questions.
Yeah..
> What are your weakness? Crippling depression... I mean... I am an perfectionist...
> What are your weakness? Crippling depression... I mean... I am an perfectionist...
"What's your biggest weakness?"
"Well, I tend to think about things that may be interesting and even have implications for work at hand for a given organization, but may turn out to be impolitic. For example: to what degree do behavioral interview questions either resemble on the job activity, or correlate with performance? If that degree is small, what's the real function of behavioral interview questions? Now, I'm sure you'll agree, that's an interesting question, maybe even one that could be used to generate productive insights for the right company. But on the other hand, it may not be very well directed to my immediate interests and goals -- there may be a much more productive answer that's more likely to result in concrete positives, like a job offer. So, you know, probably something for me to work on."
(This supersedes my previous nose-thumbing answer, which was "Fire.")
"Well, I tend to think about things that may be interesting and even have implications for work at hand for a given organization, but may turn out to be impolitic. For example: to what degree do behavioral interview questions either resemble on the job activity, or correlate with performance? If that degree is small, what's the real function of behavioral interview questions? Now, I'm sure you'll agree, that's an interesting question, maybe even one that could be used to generate productive insights for the right company. But on the other hand, it may not be very well directed to my immediate interests and goals -- there may be a much more productive answer that's more likely to result in concrete positives, like a job offer. So, you know, probably something for me to work on."
(This supersedes my previous nose-thumbing answer, which was "Fire.")
I appreciate the thought you have put into this. I'm open and honest, which means it took me a long time to get into a very senior position, where it's looked on as a strength while rank-and-file are punished to this day.
Since the article references The Office, I must mention that this response:
Q: "What's your biggest weakness?" A: "Fire"
...seems like _such_ a Dwight Schrute saying (but he would be saying it unironically).
Q: "What's your biggest weakness?" A: "Fire"
...seems like _such_ a Dwight Schrute saying (but he would be saying it unironically).
I dunno, I’d probably hire on the “fire” answer.
I wish somebody also tells the Giant eCommerce retailer's leadership principles interview. That one is the weirdest interviews I have ever attended to this date and I am confident nothing else can top that.
The HR emphasised a lot on preparing those 12 leadership principles and how it is really important for succeeding there. I walked into a room where a person on the other end of video conferencing started pounding me "tell me about a time" questions and whenever I started answering something genuine, he stopped me and said "No, No, No, you are supposed to answer from one of the 12 points that our dear lord CEO likes".
It honestly felt like a cult.
The HR emphasised a lot on preparing those 12 leadership principles and how it is really important for succeeding there. I walked into a room where a person on the other end of video conferencing started pounding me "tell me about a time" questions and whenever I started answering something genuine, he stopped me and said "No, No, No, you are supposed to answer from one of the 12 points that our dear lord CEO likes".
It honestly felt like a cult.
I've done my share of interviews at FAANG companies, on both sides of the table, and I haven't encountered most of these questions except "Tell me about a project you worked on". At least not with enough frequency for them to stick out. Some times recruiters will ask about why I'm leaving my current company but that's about it. They usually don't show up in the loops.
Mostly these aren't really behavioral interview questions.
Behavioral interview questions typically sound something like "tell me about a time when you..."
There's lots of value in a real, well crafted behavioral interview question, but most of these examples are just run-of-the-mill low-value interview questions.
Behavioral interview questions typically sound something like "tell me about a time when you..."
There's lots of value in a real, well crafted behavioral interview question, but most of these examples are just run-of-the-mill low-value interview questions.
Tell me about the time questions still make me think up bullshit answers as I have to adapt my existing stories to the question etc. I also don't have the best memory so I have to think up some details and sometimes I just say something plain wrong by mistake and I have to keep going with it in order to save face. I do feel like a Michael Scott actually.
Hearing “What’s your biggest weakness?” from an interviewer should be a strong red flag for a candidate that they don’t know what they’re doing.
Not only is it a manipulative question, the response is basically meaningless if the candidate knows the game, because you’ll get back a scripted answer. Those who don’t know the game and answer honestly will only hurt their chances at getting the job.
The only question I think it worse is “what would your former manager say about you?”
Not only is it a manipulative question, the response is basically meaningless if the candidate knows the game, because you’ll get back a scripted answer. Those who don’t know the game and answer honestly will only hurt their chances at getting the job.
The only question I think it worse is “what would your former manager say about you?”
What's funny is apparently these managers know and want a scripted ("rehearsed") answer. It's a mating dance.
In my experience they don't. They want to know if you're a reasonable, self-aware person who can communicate effectively.
Let's say you name a reasonable weakness that can easily be improved upon and that doesn't spell disaster for your ability to do your job. And let's say they reject you.
Either they're a terrible company to work for, or they have a huge mistake in their interview process. In the former case you don't want to work for a terrible company, so great, they just saved you years of pain. In the latter case, hey, mistakes happen. That's out of your control. Life is random sometimes. Besides, it's highly unlikely to be significant enough to tank your entire interview.
Let's say you name a reasonable weakness that can easily be improved upon and that doesn't spell disaster for your ability to do your job. And let's say they reject you.
Either they're a terrible company to work for, or they have a huge mistake in their interview process. In the former case you don't want to work for a terrible company, so great, they just saved you years of pain. In the latter case, hey, mistakes happen. That's out of your control. Life is random sometimes. Besides, it's highly unlikely to be significant enough to tank your entire interview.
> Let's say you name a reasonable weakness that can easily be improved upon and that doesn't spell disaster for your ability to do your job.
To the recipient, that is equally likely the rehearsed answer, because from high school on your told to think of one to reply to that question that fits into what your interviewer probably thinks is reasonable.
And there's the entire thing where some people answering truthfully would tell the interviewer things the interviewer isn't legally allowed to ask about, which is always a lovely strategy for running an interview.
To the recipient, that is equally likely the rehearsed answer, because from high school on your told to think of one to reply to that question that fits into what your interviewer probably thinks is reasonable.
And there's the entire thing where some people answering truthfully would tell the interviewer things the interviewer isn't legally allowed to ask about, which is always a lovely strategy for running an interview.
The stereotypical rehearsed answer is the Michael Scott one, where you dodge the question by actually naming a strength and pretending it's a weakness.
In my experience working at places full of smart, talented, ambitious people looking to fill a role with a similar caliber of person: don't do that.
In my experience working at places full of smart, talented, ambitious people looking to fill a role with a similar caliber of person: don't do that.
Most people knows that you should give a "real" but insignificant weakness just as you said you wanted in the previous post instead of non-weaknesses. If you don't think that people have practiced such answers and carefully picked their "weakness" then you are ignorant.
I don't know, I find it quite amusing when the engineer kind of ask the question in a "ohhh ummm, another interview question.... oh yea, *chuckles, this one" way.
Giving a honest answer where I detail my relevant weakness while also addressing how I usually mange/compensate for it have often lead to some relaxing tension in the interview.
If it comes from a HR person, the above attitude only backfires, but I don't want to work at a place with such a heavy HR filter put on everyone anyway.
If it comes from a HR person, the above attitude only backfires, but I don't want to work at a place with such a heavy HR filter put on everyone anyway.
[deleted]
I recently interviewed at a place where TWO different people asked me that and I was flabbergasted. Then they weren't sure so wanted a follow up phone screen where they asked it AGAIN.
I like to turn the question around, something like, what do I want to learn more about, and even phrase my response like that (Well, one thing I am learning more about is ____).
It's a dumb question, but you can just say "I can be too detail oriented sometimes!" and move on to more interesting points of conversation.
You definitely should NOT do this.
As the interviewee, dodging a question with a fake trite answer because you think it's dumb is a great way to signal that you're abnormally uncooperative and/or bad at communicating. And this is a question largely meant to determine your communication skills.
It boggles my mind that people think an interview is a great place to display smug, passive-aggressive hostility. But then again, this is why we have interviews…
As the interviewee, dodging a question with a fake trite answer because you think it's dumb is a great way to signal that you're abnormally uncooperative and/or bad at communicating. And this is a question largely meant to determine your communication skills.
It boggles my mind that people think an interview is a great place to display smug, passive-aggressive hostility. But then again, this is why we have interviews…
To add to it, I would be even more worried if they intend to ask such stupid questions but did not have the time to ask, then the candidate misses out on hidden red flags.
What are the strategies to expose hidden red flags?
What are the strategies to expose hidden red flags?
[deleted]
I would roll my eyes if I heard some of these answers
There's so much cynicism from a subset of the HN crowd every time something interview-related like this is posted. Some of that cynicism is warranted, sure, but not in this case.
I'll keep it real: These aren't trick questions. They're simple, fair, and easy questions, and as such they're a good way to filter out people who have atrocious communication skills, or who possess mediocre theory of mind abilities, i.e. you can't put yourself in someone else's shoes and empathize with what they're looking for. If you find these questions particularly difficult, consider the strong possibility that you're lacking here.
"What's your biggest weakness?" This one is so simple it hurts: sincerely and honestly state a reasonable weakness. For example, "I've spent lots of time working solo, so while I've learned how to wear many hats, I don't have much experience working as part of a team." If you have terrible weaknesses that can't be overcome and would seriously impair your ability to do the job, you probably shouldn't be hired anyway. If you're completely unable to list any of your own shortcomings, then you lack self awareness.
The desire to lie and talk about a fake shortcoming often comes from a scarcity mindset: "I need this job so badly that I'll say anything they want to hear. I need to be perfect!" No, in most cases you don't. And if your interviewer is so unreasonable as to expect you to be flawless, is that someone you really want to work for? There are other jobs in the sea, keep looking.
"Tell me about a project you worked on." I couldn't agree more with what the person in the article said. Talk about YOUR contributions. The company is trying to hire YOU. What did YOU do? How did you do it, and why did it matter? Again, this is about communication. If you have a halfway decent theory of mind, it should be obvious what an employer would want to hear from you when you answer this question. Demonstrate your technical depth. Show that you're aware of and care about the impact your role has on the company's higher-level goals. That you can take initiative, drive things to completion, lead, execute quickly, handle complexity, learn over time, and make good decisions.
"Why do you want to leave your company?" People leave jobs. It's a fact of life. If you can't explain why you left, you seem clueless or even dodgy. Obviously if the job was still amazing for you, you'd still be there, so I can't agree with the article's advice to never mention anything negative. Just tell the truth, communicate it effectively, and address potential concerns. For example, if there were interpersonal issues, don't just dwell on those -- compare to other jobs you've had in the past where you've been able to work well with others together, and stress how important it is to you to work in an environment where people can communicate well, have good intentions, and support each other.
These questions just aren't that hard, and unless you have a seriously flawed track record, you don't have to be dishonest to give great answers. More importantly, those answers should be a reflection of YOURSELF. If a company doesn't like you, chances are you wouldn't like them. It's like dating. The goal is not to be a match with 100% of people. Just be your best self.
Corollary: If there's a test that you find particularly hard to pass in life, your knee-jerk reaction will always be to criticize the test. But it's important to consider your own potential shortcomings and ask, "Why is this test so hard for me?" That way lies self improvement.
I'll keep it real: These aren't trick questions. They're simple, fair, and easy questions, and as such they're a good way to filter out people who have atrocious communication skills, or who possess mediocre theory of mind abilities, i.e. you can't put yourself in someone else's shoes and empathize with what they're looking for. If you find these questions particularly difficult, consider the strong possibility that you're lacking here.
"What's your biggest weakness?" This one is so simple it hurts: sincerely and honestly state a reasonable weakness. For example, "I've spent lots of time working solo, so while I've learned how to wear many hats, I don't have much experience working as part of a team." If you have terrible weaknesses that can't be overcome and would seriously impair your ability to do the job, you probably shouldn't be hired anyway. If you're completely unable to list any of your own shortcomings, then you lack self awareness.
The desire to lie and talk about a fake shortcoming often comes from a scarcity mindset: "I need this job so badly that I'll say anything they want to hear. I need to be perfect!" No, in most cases you don't. And if your interviewer is so unreasonable as to expect you to be flawless, is that someone you really want to work for? There are other jobs in the sea, keep looking.
"Tell me about a project you worked on." I couldn't agree more with what the person in the article said. Talk about YOUR contributions. The company is trying to hire YOU. What did YOU do? How did you do it, and why did it matter? Again, this is about communication. If you have a halfway decent theory of mind, it should be obvious what an employer would want to hear from you when you answer this question. Demonstrate your technical depth. Show that you're aware of and care about the impact your role has on the company's higher-level goals. That you can take initiative, drive things to completion, lead, execute quickly, handle complexity, learn over time, and make good decisions.
"Why do you want to leave your company?" People leave jobs. It's a fact of life. If you can't explain why you left, you seem clueless or even dodgy. Obviously if the job was still amazing for you, you'd still be there, so I can't agree with the article's advice to never mention anything negative. Just tell the truth, communicate it effectively, and address potential concerns. For example, if there were interpersonal issues, don't just dwell on those -- compare to other jobs you've had in the past where you've been able to work well with others together, and stress how important it is to you to work in an environment where people can communicate well, have good intentions, and support each other.
These questions just aren't that hard, and unless you have a seriously flawed track record, you don't have to be dishonest to give great answers. More importantly, those answers should be a reflection of YOURSELF. If a company doesn't like you, chances are you wouldn't like them. It's like dating. The goal is not to be a match with 100% of people. Just be your best self.
Corollary: If there's a test that you find particularly hard to pass in life, your knee-jerk reaction will always be to criticize the test. But it's important to consider your own potential shortcomings and ask, "Why is this test so hard for me?" That way lies self improvement.
> "I've spent lots of time working solo, so while I've learned how to wear many hats, I don't have much experience working as part of a team."
That is a carefully rehearsed answer making the weakness look fixable instead of being serious weakness.
> sincerely and honestly state a reasonable weakness.
No, the question was "what's your biggest weakness", the "I haven't practiced doing this kind of work" is not a big weakness, everyone have bigger weaknesses than that due to their personality.
An honest answer would be "I am much slower learning technical things than my peers" or "I am competitive so I often come in conflict with my peers" or "I am afraid of conflict so I have a hard time making decisions" or "I get bored easily so I have a hard time finishing things" or "I constantly wear a mask so people never learn to know the real me" or "I don't like being proven wrong" or "I judge peoples competence by how much I like them rather than what they actually do" etc.
There is not a single person who doesn't have one weakness like that since many of them are a spectrum where no position is good. The "correct" answer is of course like you said, you give an easily fixable weakness like "I don't fully understand how deployment pipelines work since someone else did most of the work where I worked previously". But such answers are so easy to come up with, and are guaranteed not to be their biggest weakness, so you are basically checking whether they are fine with lying or lack self awareness.
That is a carefully rehearsed answer making the weakness look fixable instead of being serious weakness.
> sincerely and honestly state a reasonable weakness.
No, the question was "what's your biggest weakness", the "I haven't practiced doing this kind of work" is not a big weakness, everyone have bigger weaknesses than that due to their personality.
An honest answer would be "I am much slower learning technical things than my peers" or "I am competitive so I often come in conflict with my peers" or "I am afraid of conflict so I have a hard time making decisions" or "I get bored easily so I have a hard time finishing things" or "I constantly wear a mask so people never learn to know the real me" or "I don't like being proven wrong" or "I judge peoples competence by how much I like them rather than what they actually do" etc.
There is not a single person who doesn't have one weakness like that since many of them are a spectrum where no position is good. The "correct" answer is of course like you said, you give an easily fixable weakness like "I don't fully understand how deployment pipelines work since someone else did most of the work where I worked previously". But such answers are so easy to come up with, and are guaranteed not to be their biggest weakness, so you are basically checking whether they are fine with lying or lack self awareness.
> That is a carefully rehearsed answer making the weakness look fixable instead of being serious weakness.
First, there's absolutely nothing wrong with rehearsing your answers to common questions like this. If anything it allows you to present yourself in the best light, which every interviewer wants. Nothing is worse than turning down a good candidate who performed poorly because they didn't take the interview seriously.
Second, I literally thought of that answer off the top of my head in a few seconds. It wasn't actually rehearsed. I don't mean this to sound arrogant. There are many millions of others who can do the same -- think on their feet, take the interviewer's desires into account, and come up with a great answer. Some of these people will be interviewing at the same places as you. It's important to know that there is a wide range of communication abilities, just like there is a wide range of programming abilities.
> No, the question was "what's your biggest weakness", the "I haven't practiced doing this kind of work" is not a big weakness, everyone have bigger weaknesses than that due to their personality… such answers are so easy to come up with, and are guaranteed not to be their biggest weakness, so you are basically checking whether they are fine with lying or lack self awareness
This is splitting hairs. A reasonable person won't expect you riff through all your weaknesses to literally find the biggest one. They just want to hear something that's not too trivial.
I can confident assert that the best communicators would instantly be aware of this when posed the question in an interview. I know a lot of engineers (myself included) who have a higher-than-normal-or-useful tendency to take things as literally as possible, as if every sentence is a spec, which makes us (relatively) poor or at least awkward communicators.
> An honest answer would be "I am much slower learning technical things than my peers" or "I am competitive so I often come in conflict with my peers" or "I am afraid of conflict so I have a hard time making decisions" or "I get bored easily so I have a hard time finishing things" or "I constantly wear a mask so people never learn to know the real me" or "I don't like being proven wrong" or "I judge peoples competence by how much I like them rather than what they actually do" etc.
Sure, and you could totally go that route if you want to. And ideally you'd go a step further, demonstrate that whatever trait you list is actually innate in humans, and that it's taken you work to be aware of it and work on it.
First, there's absolutely nothing wrong with rehearsing your answers to common questions like this. If anything it allows you to present yourself in the best light, which every interviewer wants. Nothing is worse than turning down a good candidate who performed poorly because they didn't take the interview seriously.
Second, I literally thought of that answer off the top of my head in a few seconds. It wasn't actually rehearsed. I don't mean this to sound arrogant. There are many millions of others who can do the same -- think on their feet, take the interviewer's desires into account, and come up with a great answer. Some of these people will be interviewing at the same places as you. It's important to know that there is a wide range of communication abilities, just like there is a wide range of programming abilities.
> No, the question was "what's your biggest weakness", the "I haven't practiced doing this kind of work" is not a big weakness, everyone have bigger weaknesses than that due to their personality… such answers are so easy to come up with, and are guaranteed not to be their biggest weakness, so you are basically checking whether they are fine with lying or lack self awareness
This is splitting hairs. A reasonable person won't expect you riff through all your weaknesses to literally find the biggest one. They just want to hear something that's not too trivial.
I can confident assert that the best communicators would instantly be aware of this when posed the question in an interview. I know a lot of engineers (myself included) who have a higher-than-normal-or-useful tendency to take things as literally as possible, as if every sentence is a spec, which makes us (relatively) poor or at least awkward communicators.
> An honest answer would be "I am much slower learning technical things than my peers" or "I am competitive so I often come in conflict with my peers" or "I am afraid of conflict so I have a hard time making decisions" or "I get bored easily so I have a hard time finishing things" or "I constantly wear a mask so people never learn to know the real me" or "I don't like being proven wrong" or "I judge peoples competence by how much I like them rather than what they actually do" etc.
Sure, and you could totally go that route if you want to. And ideally you'd go a step further, demonstrate that whatever trait you list is actually innate in humans, and that it's taken you work to be aware of it and work on it.
Yeah I think there is an innate desire for fairness that leads to a desperation for objectivity. You have companies like Triplebyte attempting to commoditize software engineers, and the perception that FAANG is the only place to be exacerbating the problem.
The reality there is no objectivity in hiring, and there is no theoretically optimal global stack rank of software engineers: every person is unique and the needs of specific roles vary widely even within a single company. A lot of people treat getting a job as the continuation of a people-pleasing, hoop-jumping mentality that was honed over decades of education in the Victorian model.
I know it can be very frustrating to be rejected by seemingly clueless hiring managers for arbitrary reasons. I also know that some personality traits can be positive or negative depending on the internal situation on the team. You can never be sure of the illegitimacy of any given rejection, or whether it’s a blessing in disguise. For these reasons it’s better to focus on your craft and clear communication thereof rather than obsessing over the game-like aspects of hiring.
The reality there is no objectivity in hiring, and there is no theoretically optimal global stack rank of software engineers: every person is unique and the needs of specific roles vary widely even within a single company. A lot of people treat getting a job as the continuation of a people-pleasing, hoop-jumping mentality that was honed over decades of education in the Victorian model.
I know it can be very frustrating to be rejected by seemingly clueless hiring managers for arbitrary reasons. I also know that some personality traits can be positive or negative depending on the internal situation on the team. You can never be sure of the illegitimacy of any given rejection, or whether it’s a blessing in disguise. For these reasons it’s better to focus on your craft and clear communication thereof rather than obsessing over the game-like aspects of hiring.
just wanted to say that I like your take on this, good and positive advice.
GMAFIA not FAANG. Why is Netflix in that list?
Because working for IBM is just as cool and respected as working for Accenture.
Because of their stock growth
>Please don’t take the Michael Scott approach and turn this into a backhanded compliment (‘My biggest weakness is that I care too much’). I’d highly recommend giving an honest answer, and one that is as specific as possible and not handwavy. This shows that you’re self-aware and are able to independently identify areas for personal growth
I disagree. People should be aware of the downsides to their strengths when they exist. One can be very creative but with the cost of a very scattered focus. One can drill down extremely deeply on problems but have trouble knowing when to move on.
Then again I think this whole exercise in telling people what managers want to hear in an interview is pointless, subjective ego masturbation.
What if your greatest weakness comes off as a false red flag? What if you know there's a high likelihood that they'll take it as such even though you're an above average fit for the position? Of course the manager wants an honest answer - this is the ideal answer from the manager's perspective, but piss poor advice for a candidate. Personally, I can't imagine putting an interviewee on the spot like that for such a poor, noisy signal.
I disagree. People should be aware of the downsides to their strengths when they exist. One can be very creative but with the cost of a very scattered focus. One can drill down extremely deeply on problems but have trouble knowing when to move on.
Then again I think this whole exercise in telling people what managers want to hear in an interview is pointless, subjective ego masturbation.
What if your greatest weakness comes off as a false red flag? What if you know there's a high likelihood that they'll take it as such even though you're an above average fit for the position? Of course the manager wants an honest answer - this is the ideal answer from the manager's perspective, but piss poor advice for a candidate. Personally, I can't imagine putting an interviewee on the spot like that for such a poor, noisy signal.
Exactly. Telling interviewees that what interviewers want to hear is "honest answers" sounds like the advice of somebody so deep in manager land they've become out of touch with the fundamentals of human interaction. The beginning of a business relationship is no different from the beginning of any relationship: You can be perfectly honest without being so frank about your flaws that you create a bad impression. The question is pointless bullshit that does nothing but arbitrarily pare down your candidate list for lack of anything more germane to distinguish them by. And it sounds poignant, so it's easy to convince yourself of its genius.
I'm not a manager, or even a senior engineer. But I've also noticed personally that I'm comfortable judging an interviewee's answer to my open-ended questions. I really like concise answers that make it easy for me to dig into specific details. I can have objective standards for answers about specific details. Giving a handwavy answer to an open-ended question may be better than giving a detailed answer that leads to an objectively bad answer. But it leaves me feeling less excited about the candidate.
Giving "honest answers" is dangerous. Even if it's diplomatic, the interviewer could decide it's the wrong answer. But you are also interviewing company, so if your answer is something you really care about a wrong answer probably indicates a bad company fit. For instance I remember I was interviewing at a startup, and I was concerned that their core business depended on a project where the deadlines and deliverables were not adjustable, so I asked them about WLB and long-term crunchtime. I was told that they disagreed with the premise of my question, they viewed the work as a marathon, not a sprint. Culturally it was very important to them that the workload and hours in the office were sustainable. I was really impressed with that answer. I also had a phone screen with an early stage startup where long hours were mentioned. And when I commented about it, the interviewer said he had no problem with it because he was really excited about the work and really liked his coworkers as friends. Both things are great to have at your job, but I thought that was a bad answer to a question about long work hours. Those were two completely different cultures, and I'd be fine knowing that the same "honest answer" cost me a job offer from one of those companies.
Giving "honest answers" is dangerous. Even if it's diplomatic, the interviewer could decide it's the wrong answer. But you are also interviewing company, so if your answer is something you really care about a wrong answer probably indicates a bad company fit. For instance I remember I was interviewing at a startup, and I was concerned that their core business depended on a project where the deadlines and deliverables were not adjustable, so I asked them about WLB and long-term crunchtime. I was told that they disagreed with the premise of my question, they viewed the work as a marathon, not a sprint. Culturally it was very important to them that the workload and hours in the office were sustainable. I was really impressed with that answer. I also had a phone screen with an early stage startup where long hours were mentioned. And when I commented about it, the interviewer said he had no problem with it because he was really excited about the work and really liked his coworkers as friends. Both things are great to have at your job, but I thought that was a bad answer to a question about long work hours. Those were two completely different cultures, and I'd be fine knowing that the same "honest answer" cost me a job offer from one of those companies.
> But I've also noticed personally that I'm comfortable judging an interviewee's answer to my open-ended questions.
This is almost surely due to bias, almost everyone believe they are good at it but statistics say that the ones who can judge it are so few that there is no point in trying.
This is almost surely due to bias, almost everyone believe they are good at it but statistics say that the ones who can judge it are so few that there is no point in trying.
Exactly. And the few that actually can analyze the interviewee's response wouldn't ever start with such a moronic question, but something subtle enough that the interviewee wouldn't even realize the true intent of the question before giving an answer.
If I hear dumb questions in an interview, it's a red flag about that person's ability to be self-aware.
If I hear dumb questions in an interview, it's a red flag about that person's ability to be self-aware.
This question sends a message "I'm a boss, you're a rank-and-file employee. Now, when we've made it clear, do a little self shaming."
Imagine addressing this question to a senior lawyer that you need to sort out some complicated situation. I guess, the lawyer would be first stunned for a second and then insulted that he's being treated like a kid.
Imagine addressing this question to a senior lawyer that you need to sort out some complicated situation. I guess, the lawyer would be first stunned for a second and then insulted that he's being treated like a kid.
[deleted]
Would they? Lots of law firms advertise when not to use them, and will often refer you to other, better options.
But you don't go to a lawyer and ask what they don't do. You ask whether they can solve your specific problem.
And you don't (often) hire full-time employees to solve a specific problem. They may work in a domain, but you don't hire someone to solve a specific problem.
What is the point in even asking this question? What kind of answer do they expect?
“In 1921, tired of hiring college graduates that didn’t know as much as he did, Thomas Edison made up a giant trivia questionnaire to administer to inbound applicants. According to Mental Floss, questions included “Who invented logarithms?” and “Why is cast iron called Pig Iron?”
...
“To summarize, almost 100 years ago, an aging, eccentric, and incredibly brilliant inventor decided one day that he didn’t like hiring kids that weren’t his equals in knowledge. He devised a scheme off the cuff to indulge his preference and we’re still doing that exact thing about a century later.”
Excerpt From Developer Hegemony Erik Dietrich
To answe your question, the “soft skills” questions are no different then riddles. They are an arbitrary set of questions that instead of being defined by technical folks are instead created by HR people. It’s an arbitrary barrier to entry that allows HR to rank candidates.
Excerpt From Developer Hegemony Erik Dietrich
To answe your question, the “soft skills” questions are no different then riddles. They are an arbitrary set of questions that instead of being defined by technical folks are instead created by HR people. It’s an arbitrary barrier to entry that allows HR to rank candidates.
To be honest I basically feel the same for all of these behavioural questions. Bar the ones that ask specifically what you have contributed in previous roles.
Stuff like "Why are you leaving your previous company" has no good answers. The linked article says as much by saying "stay positive and avoid the negative" if there are no negatives or direct benefits you seek to achieve by moving then you wouldn't be interviewing, so they are basically advising you lie as it's the only "correct" answer.
When I have done hiring in the past I have generally just thrown out all of this nonsense and avoided sourcers/recruiters because everyone currently in hiring uses filters I don't agree with (education, resume etc) and don't sufficiently understand filters I DO care about (open source contributions, specific projects/teams within previous companies).
Then when it comes time to actually interview I am only interested in how well they can do 2 things. a) build stuff b) work with my team. b) is still fuzzy but atleast I have a more solid idea of what that might entail and can get a good feel by talking to the person and a) is pretty objective. Don't need any coding tests just need to talk to them about what they have built, how it works in sufficient detail and their opinions and thoughts on some sufficiently deep technical topics.
This mightn't scale as well but it sure beats all the nonsense and waste of money sources/recruiters/HR incur in the hiring pipeline.
After I find someone I want then and only then do I take their resume/etc to HR. Never let them act as a filter as they drop great people all the time and give me a stream of "good on paper but completely useless" people that have zero culture fit.
I couldn't care less IF or WHERE you went to university. If you learnt to build stuff at university, great, basement of your parents place, great, on a bench in the park while you were homeless trying to get this job, also great. Don't care how you learnt it only that you can.
Just like I don't give a rats ass if your resume doesn't have a single buzzword or anything in it. If it looks like you have worked on relevant stuff or at relevant places that is good enough.
This approach is all that has worked for me for getting genuinely good people, it takes time and effort but your team is worth it.
Stuff like "Why are you leaving your previous company" has no good answers. The linked article says as much by saying "stay positive and avoid the negative" if there are no negatives or direct benefits you seek to achieve by moving then you wouldn't be interviewing, so they are basically advising you lie as it's the only "correct" answer.
When I have done hiring in the past I have generally just thrown out all of this nonsense and avoided sourcers/recruiters because everyone currently in hiring uses filters I don't agree with (education, resume etc) and don't sufficiently understand filters I DO care about (open source contributions, specific projects/teams within previous companies).
Then when it comes time to actually interview I am only interested in how well they can do 2 things. a) build stuff b) work with my team. b) is still fuzzy but atleast I have a more solid idea of what that might entail and can get a good feel by talking to the person and a) is pretty objective. Don't need any coding tests just need to talk to them about what they have built, how it works in sufficient detail and their opinions and thoughts on some sufficiently deep technical topics.
This mightn't scale as well but it sure beats all the nonsense and waste of money sources/recruiters/HR incur in the hiring pipeline.
After I find someone I want then and only then do I take their resume/etc to HR. Never let them act as a filter as they drop great people all the time and give me a stream of "good on paper but completely useless" people that have zero culture fit.
I couldn't care less IF or WHERE you went to university. If you learnt to build stuff at university, great, basement of your parents place, great, on a bench in the park while you were homeless trying to get this job, also great. Don't care how you learnt it only that you can.
Just like I don't give a rats ass if your resume doesn't have a single buzzword or anything in it. If it looks like you have worked on relevant stuff or at relevant places that is good enough.
This approach is all that has worked for me for getting genuinely good people, it takes time and effort but your team is worth it.
The question is really testing whether you can tell someone what they want to hear while making it seem like you’re being honest, which is a very useful skill both for internal politics and customer interactions.
Yeah I think so too. I wonder if they themselves also believe that. The ones who are asking you to be honest. It could be just likely that this is a bullshit media answer demonstrating the exact same dishonest way to answer questions. It is a terrible irony and joke, really. I do not know a much better solution for it though.
break up these rancid companies
I usually think up some random weaknesses that I consider irrelevant and speak about those just to prove that I can be self aware.
Also I think very big portion what I am saying is bullshit because I don't even particularly remember a lot of the details of the stories that would match those questions. So I have to come up with new stories or think up details for the stories I don't quite remember.
I passed Amazon interview process and all the other behavioral interviews I have ever attended so I must be doing something right despite my constant feeling of terror and anxiety.
I do think that I want to find a completely remote job now, I hate being in the office around people and I feel so much better when I can work from home. However I am afraid this might worsen the issue since I am not putting myself out there. But it doesn't seem to me as if putting myself out there has also helped my anxiety.