Red Flags I Saw While Doing 60 Technical Interviews in 30 Days(meekg33k.dev)
meekg33k.dev
Red Flags I Saw While Doing 60 Technical Interviews in 30 Days
https://meekg33k.dev/6-red-flags-i-saw-while-doing-60-technical-interviews-in-30-days-ckm53wt5f00avscs13xf9fhcs
246 comments
I don't think what you're talking about applies to the particular criticism leveled in the post.
The company gave him 72 hours to accept an offer. To me, that's a red flag right there.
And then they started pestering him (well before the 72 hour time limit) to accept the offer. If this had just been HR or the recruiter, I'd find it annoying, but perhaps not a big red flag.
But the VP and hiring manager were calling him. To me this says that they are pushy people who don't respect boundaries (not even the boundaries they themselves lay out!). I would be very worried about those attitudes from my boss-to-be and boss's-boss-to-be when it comes to project scheduling and deadlines.
Even if this doesn't reflect company culture as a whole, it certainly reflects the behavior of the people who would be in my direct reporting chain, and that's not the type of people I want to work for.
The company gave him 72 hours to accept an offer. To me, that's a red flag right there.
And then they started pestering him (well before the 72 hour time limit) to accept the offer. If this had just been HR or the recruiter, I'd find it annoying, but perhaps not a big red flag.
But the VP and hiring manager were calling him. To me this says that they are pushy people who don't respect boundaries (not even the boundaries they themselves lay out!). I would be very worried about those attitudes from my boss-to-be and boss's-boss-to-be when it comes to project scheduling and deadlines.
Even if this doesn't reflect company culture as a whole, it certainly reflects the behavior of the people who would be in my direct reporting chain, and that's not the type of people I want to work for.
72 hours is not a quick timeline. I've routinely set shorter (48 - 36)... Just say no if you don't like offer so company can move on.
72 hours is quick. A week is more reasonable. I had one company try to pull a 48 hour decision on me and I straight up told them I was declining the offer if they didn't give me more time to consider it. They backed down.
This is a decision that will impact my career trajectory, and I may have other offers coming. So yes, I want enough time to consider all options before making a decision with ramifications that will last years.
This is a decision that will impact my career trajectory, and I may have other offers coming. So yes, I want enough time to consider all options before making a decision with ramifications that will last years.
I'm not sure it's so much time to consider as time to tell any others companies you're also through some part of the process with (especially if you're already through interviews) that they need to make a formal offer to you now or you're going elsewhere.
Maybe it's just me but if you just have one offer letter in hand and have probably already thought about what it would take to take an offer, I can almost certainly make a decision in an evening.
Maybe it's just me but if you just have one offer letter in hand and have probably already thought about what it would take to take an offer, I can almost certainly make a decision in an evening.
Perfect - you'd be someone we wanted to hire!
But seriously, if you are in a business that has been around a while (20-30 year range) and likes folks to stay a long time - you just are not as interested in hiring the type of folks who want to set off bidding wars, drag out offers, counteroffers, job hop etc.
If the candidate is great, can always just say, would love to talk through an offer that would work for you. If they are reasonable - bingo - everyone is happy. Again though, these offers end up with a short expiration so I can get to next person if you don't want position after all that.
But I also pull down posting pretty promptly, do a quick 5 minute phone screen with lots of folks right away (same or next day after application) etc. so they can move on too.
But seriously, if you are in a business that has been around a while (20-30 year range) and likes folks to stay a long time - you just are not as interested in hiring the type of folks who want to set off bidding wars, drag out offers, counteroffers, job hop etc.
If the candidate is great, can always just say, would love to talk through an offer that would work for you. If they are reasonable - bingo - everyone is happy. Again though, these offers end up with a short expiration so I can get to next person if you don't want position after all that.
But I also pull down posting pretty promptly, do a quick 5 minute phone screen with lots of folks right away (same or next day after application) etc. so they can move on too.
You'll also want enough time to give the other companies a chance to counteroffer. You have more leverage with an offer in hand.
Yes, it's a function of there being other companies in the mix. I've only been in that position once right out of engineering grad school. As it turns out, the position I (probably incorrectly) wanted was from the government and they didn't have any flexibility. (This was also in the early 1980s and the salary figures would seem hilarious to people here although I assume software wasn't much different at the time.)
From the hiring side, a (reasonable) expiration on the offer helps be fair to the other people who are interviewing, too. If I have a single position open and multiple people interviewing, as a hiring manager I really need to know whether my top choice is serious once we're having a discussion about signing a contract - because if they aren't, or are still trying to land better offers from other places because they have concerns about my offer and aren't raising them, I have other candidates just hanging out and waiting. Its not fair to the other candidates to say "you're not my top choice from this round, please hang on just in case we need you", or to just stall while we see how things play out - nobody feels good about that.
Granted, if you're getting very short exploding offers from big companies who are almost certainly hiring for a role continuously or in bulk, that would leave a bad taste in my mouth too. But if you're interviewing at the kind of company that may have budget for just a single new hire, and multiple people are interviewing, a reasonable expiration makes sure we're both mutually serious about eachother. I want to hire you enough that we've put together a (hopefully) compelling offer, you want to work on the team enough that you (hopefully) either feel good accepting the offer quickly or raising your concerns so we can discuss. If the offer isn't right for you, sitting on it as a backup in hopes that you can find something better is detrimental everyone involved.
Granted, if you're getting very short exploding offers from big companies who are almost certainly hiring for a role continuously or in bulk, that would leave a bad taste in my mouth too. But if you're interviewing at the kind of company that may have budget for just a single new hire, and multiple people are interviewing, a reasonable expiration makes sure we're both mutually serious about eachother. I want to hire you enough that we've put together a (hopefully) compelling offer, you want to work on the team enough that you (hopefully) either feel good accepting the offer quickly or raising your concerns so we can discuss. If the offer isn't right for you, sitting on it as a backup in hopes that you can find something better is detrimental everyone involved.
The hypocrisy is that to even get to the point where you have a 24 / 48 hour exploding offer, you (the candidate) had to often wait weeks to get a response to the application, phone screen, on-site, decision.
So I don’t buy this fairness argument. If we’re talking about fairness, the process would be super quick, and then I would get a week to think about a decision that will affect YEARS of my life. To say nothing of things like asking previous salary, salary expectations, etc. Everyone knows why it’s done. If you wanted to be fair, the salary would simply be posted with the criteria that would influence it up or down. There is a reason unions and public sector jobs do this.
Companies have access to far more market salary data than I do. It’s not close to fair.
My job is far more influential to me than the company. It’s 100% of my income and yet I’m only one of many for the company. This should be taken into consideration.
So I don’t buy this fairness argument. If we’re talking about fairness, the process would be super quick, and then I would get a week to think about a decision that will affect YEARS of my life. To say nothing of things like asking previous salary, salary expectations, etc. Everyone knows why it’s done. If you wanted to be fair, the salary would simply be posted with the criteria that would influence it up or down. There is a reason unions and public sector jobs do this.
Companies have access to far more market salary data than I do. It’s not close to fair.
My job is far more influential to me than the company. It’s 100% of my income and yet I’m only one of many for the company. This should be taken into consideration.
Well, it's an asymmetrical situation; you had to wait to get an initial response, but on the other hand, you can keep interviewing while the offer is on the table. I think the explosion timer is simply a response to the fact that it's not an exclusive relationship (yet), but the company cannot explore other options while the offer is out.
I am not even sure how to judge fairness; do you have a specific moral/ethical framework in mind?
I am not even sure how to judge fairness; do you have a specific moral/ethical framework in mind?
> but the company cannot explore other options while the offer is out.
That’s not how it works in most companies
That’s not how it works in most companies
Quick can be bad - if someone submits a resume on day one that is good should we hire them or wait a week for someone else to discover the position? If you don't know you want to work for the company until by random chance is shows up in one of your searches as hiring your type of person then you need the time to discover us. As a results policy is we can't interview anyone until the position has been posted for a week, or we have at least 7 people who seem worth interviewing. (you want to be in the former - less competition: we will prefer to wait the full week instead of taking all 7 - though do note that week 1 is posted only to internal transfers in some cases)
In most cases people don't actually have two serious leads to a job at the same time. I know it is potentially years of your life that you need to decide on, but for most people there isn't a choice. If you are on unemployment you need to justify not taking a job offer or you lose benefits (this varies by state/country). Even if that isn't a concern, odds are you have one offer in hand and a few leads that probably won't call you in for an interview anytime soon so again there isn't much hope anyway.
In most cases people don't actually have two serious leads to a job at the same time. I know it is potentially years of your life that you need to decide on, but for most people there isn't a choice. If you are on unemployment you need to justify not taking a job offer or you lose benefits (this varies by state/country). Even if that isn't a concern, odds are you have one offer in hand and a few leads that probably won't call you in for an interview anytime soon so again there isn't much hope anyway.
> if someone submits a resume on day one that is good should we hire them or wait a week for someone else to discover the position?
if some company gives me an offer on day one that is good should I accept it or wait a week for some other company to give me an offer?
It cuts both ways.
> In most cases people don't actually have two serious leads to a job at the same time.
That's common for me, as I usually do a bunch of interviews around the same time when I'm interested in knowing what else is out there.
Most of the time I'm not really paying attention to my LinkedIn unless I see something that immediately catches my attention, which is rare.
> but for most people there isn't a choice.
If there isn't a choice people will decide and reply quickly, you don't need an exploding offer in that case.
if some company gives me an offer on day one that is good should I accept it or wait a week for some other company to give me an offer?
It cuts both ways.
> In most cases people don't actually have two serious leads to a job at the same time.
That's common for me, as I usually do a bunch of interviews around the same time when I'm interested in knowing what else is out there.
Most of the time I'm not really paying attention to my LinkedIn unless I see something that immediately catches my attention, which is rare.
> but for most people there isn't a choice.
If there isn't a choice people will decide and reply quickly, you don't need an exploding offer in that case.
Also if you're at a level where senior people are interviewing you, it can just take a while to make everything happen. (This is particularly true if you're interviewing with people who travel a lot.) I have at least some reason to believe that being hired for my current position (which I've had for over ten years) wasn't controversial but it still took a couple months for it to happen.
One thing I am very careful about now is to try to keep offer terms from being a surprise.
If I know what to expect comp- and offer-wise earlier, then an exploding offer is just the culmination of the weeks of lead-up and thinking on it.
But sometimes recruiters don't want to give you that until offer stage. Other times, it's not so hard to get.
If I know what to expect comp- and offer-wise earlier, then an exploding offer is just the culmination of the weeks of lead-up and thinking on it.
But sometimes recruiters don't want to give you that until offer stage. Other times, it's not so hard to get.
From a candidate perspective its very hard to evaluate what your compensation should be without first pooling multiple offers. Its also very hard to schedule many interviews in a short period such that the offer letters can be compared side by side.
For this reason I generally indicate a 1-2 week response time to an offer letter. I almost always come in before that, maybe around 2-3 days, but I find it absolutely essential to accepting a job to have that breathing room. Even if I lose out of some offers, its still a better investment to be patient.
For context I've been in the industry 6 years with 2 jobs and maybe 12 interviews to date. Currently going through interviews for $job-3.
For this reason I generally indicate a 1-2 week response time to an offer letter. I almost always come in before that, maybe around 2-3 days, but I find it absolutely essential to accepting a job to have that breathing room. Even if I lose out of some offers, its still a better investment to be patient.
For context I've been in the industry 6 years with 2 jobs and maybe 12 interviews to date. Currently going through interviews for $job-3.
Having multiple offers on the table certainly helps - but I feel a lot of people know what they're looking for in terms of comp range when they're going into the interview process. Recruiters will usually ask you up-front what your target comp range is before even submitting your resume to a company. At engineer salary levels in the US, +/- $5-10k isn't going to be a life changing amount of money (especially after taxes), and is likely within the realms of negotiations anyway. The main reason for big jumps in comp are if you're applying to vastly different types of companies with wide levels of stock options on the table, eg FANG vs seed-stage startup.
Conversely a lot of companies don't list their range and a lot of recruiters, hiring managers, and other groups, won't list an accurate range especially in "newer" roles like devops engineering, ml-ops, security roles, semi-management roles, etc. I've seen anywhere from $80k-$180k offered for the same role disclosed randomly throughout the hiring process - sometimes its listed on a job board, sometimes you won't know until the offer letter.
It's hard to get a fixed answer because there is no fixed answer. Only government jobs have a strict predefined salary, private industry everything is negotiable.
The role may be advertised at a certain level but most of the time there is flexibility in going up or down a level based on candidate experience and how badly you make them want you. So 80K-180K can be a perfectly feasible range for the same job posting.
The role may be advertised at a certain level but most of the time there is flexibility in going up or down a level based on candidate experience and how badly you make them want you. So 80K-180K can be a perfectly feasible range for the same job posting.
I liked to ask the question, "If I extended an offer you like, would you accept it?" It helps facilitate a regular conversation about if & when someone would accept an offer, and if any steps can be taken to make an offer happen.
That question is one of my favorite questions as a candidate because it provides the space to have a realistic conversation about compensation and what is necessary to make the move a reality.
I was asked this question point blank and it took me by surprise. Then they asked me to name the comp for me to accept their offer and when I did they still exceeded it
It's good that they exceeded it. IIUC, generally accepted negotiation theory says that the first person to name a number loses.
Yeah, if I name a number and you exceed it that shows you want me. If you force me to name a number and you still come in below that is going to be a no even though I might have accepted it if you didn’t force me to give a number.
I just had a 3 month interview experience with Apple and the recruiter was the worst ever, kept lowballing and giving small improvements and the hiring manager accused her of lying to him. It was a role that i care a lot about but after that interaction there was no way I could say yes.
I just had a 3 month interview experience with Apple and the recruiter was the worst ever, kept lowballing and giving small improvements and the hiring manager accused her of lying to him. It was a role that i care a lot about but after that interaction there was no way I could say yes.
How is this a good question? The only acceptable answer is "yes" otherwise the interview is over.
If someone has 1+ interviews scheduled, they may not be prepared to give you an answer until they've explored their options. If you push the candidate to accept, they may just turn you down because they don't like being pressured.
Because the only acceptable answer is actually “it depends” and the point of the question is to find what it depends on.
It depends how you interpret the question. If I have objections that need to be overcome, it implies I don't like the offer. My natural answer to the question would be "sure", but that doesn't tell the interviewer anything about what I would "like".
Exploding offers are bluffs.
We all know the team wanted someone that could hit the ground running yesterday for the last 6 months.
We all know the team wanted someone that could hit the ground running yesterday for the last 6 months.
That is my experience as well. Every time I got an "exploding offer", I said "Thank you, but I need more time because I'm interviewing with other companies." This was always met with an "of course".
That said, I never got an offer from something like SV startup or a FAANG, so I can imagine it's totally different over there.
That said, I never got an offer from something like SV startup or a FAANG, so I can imagine it's totally different over there.
> That said, I never got an offer from something like SV startup or a FAANG, so I can imagine it's totally different over there.
It's not.
They can choose to be dicks about it or not, but the way they use their leverage isn't any worse. Competition for employees is fiercer than other markets. You yourself can get away with being a dick to them.
It's not.
They can choose to be dicks about it or not, but the way they use their leverage isn't any worse. Competition for employees is fiercer than other markets. You yourself can get away with being a dick to them.
That is certainly not true in all cases. It's possible that there's a second choice candidate, and the hiring manager wants to extend an offer to them as soon as the other candidate declines.
Probably more common is an experience I was in- we found a good candidate, he wanted to finish other interviews before making a decision and I gave him a few weeks to decide, then later I regretted giving him so much time. It meant I had to either pause the candidate search for a few weeks or potentially waste my time and candidates' time interviewing people when there may not be an opening.
Probably more common is an experience I was in- we found a good candidate, he wanted to finish other interviews before making a decision and I gave him a few weeks to decide, then later I regretted giving him so much time. It meant I had to either pause the candidate search for a few weeks or potentially waste my time and candidates' time interviewing people when there may not be an opening.
Treat them as bluffs anyway.
Of course if you personally were on the job market and were actually desperate because your spouse said "maybe its time to be realistic" and the bills were piling up, then you don't have the luxury of playing this game.
Of course if you personally were on the job market and were actually desperate because your spouse said "maybe its time to be realistic" and the bills were piling up, then you don't have the luxury of playing this game.
Google gave me a 4-day exploding offer and it really did explode.
What a joke. I've received two offers from Google and the first took nearly 5 weeks from start (phone screen) to finish (offer), and the second well over two months. And both offers were seriously disappointing.
Yes, salespeople call it the impending doom close. If you don’t buy this car/house/holiday today it will be gone tomorrow.
They are although often it's not even an intentional bluff. It's just part of the HR offer letter template so there it is. You want more time just ask. Never seen a company (either as interviewer or interviewee) say no.
Right, so if you can't hit the ground running in two weeks or less (2 weeks notice to leave your previous job) we will move on. The job market is hot, but we do have other candidates. I've been in the situation where we liked person A best, but person B was almost as good and would have got an offer if we had 2 positions open, so if you can't accept fast we want to get your offer to person B before they find a different job. I know of one case where we sent person's B resume to a different division that did their own interview and hired them.
>if you can't hit the ground running in two weeks or less (2 weeks notice to leave your previous job) we will move on
That seems unreasonable in a lot of situations. In my current position, yes, they did want me to start right away but I really did want to take a real vacation before I started so I negotiated it out to a month or something like that. No, it's not reasonable to offer to start in six months. It's pretty reasonable IMO to offer to start in a month. (I did accept the same day. No brainer. It was a good offer. It was my first choice company. I really needed to move on.)
That seems unreasonable in a lot of situations. In my current position, yes, they did want me to start right away but I really did want to take a real vacation before I started so I negotiated it out to a month or something like that. No, it's not reasonable to offer to start in six months. It's pretty reasonable IMO to offer to start in a month. (I did accept the same day. No brainer. It was a good offer. It was my first choice company. I really needed to move on.)
No, it's not reasonable to offer to start in six months. It's pretty reasonable IMO to offer to start in a month.
This depends very much on the industry and the location. In much of Europe, particularly at senior levels, 3 months notice is the norm and between one thing and another you might start at the new company 4-5 months after accepting the offer.
This depends very much on the industry and the location. In much of Europe, particularly at senior levels, 3 months notice is the norm and between one thing and another you might start at the new company 4-5 months after accepting the offer.
It’s quite fair. Are you hiring the best candidate or just any candidate? If the former, you make your offer to the best candidate and wait a reasonable time for their response, a week is usually sufficient. If you wish to offer to any candidate, offer to them all and see who accepts, but as you may find out, that’s not actually legal.
But of course you are looking for the best candidate right? If so, waiting for their answer is ultimately the one that serves you best.
But of course you are looking for the best candidate right? If so, waiting for their answer is ultimately the one that serves you best.
companies apparently have no issue rescinding offers, so I wonder whether it is really illegal to give verbal offers to n candidates and then rescind n-1 of them.
You have to take it on a case by case basis. I think the important thing is to have a candid conversation between the candidate and the employer.
"I have a final round interview in two days with another company that ends a 3 week interview process, and I'd like to compare offers"
is a very different response to
"Thanks for the offer, there's 8 or 9 more companies that I'd like to apply to before making a decision, can you give me 2-3 months to get back to you?".
Having a conversation gives both the candidate and the employer another data point. How serious is the person about wanting to work for your company, and how much does the company want to hire you as a candidate? It also just feels like a healthier way to start the relationship.
"I have a final round interview in two days with another company that ends a 3 week interview process, and I'd like to compare offers"
is a very different response to
"Thanks for the offer, there's 8 or 9 more companies that I'd like to apply to before making a decision, can you give me 2-3 months to get back to you?".
Having a conversation gives both the candidate and the employer another data point. How serious is the person about wanting to work for your company, and how much does the company want to hire you as a candidate? It also just feels like a healthier way to start the relationship.
I think I sympathise with companies hiring for a single position. It’s hard to organise timing with several candidates and recruiting is expensive. If they’re a large company, I see it as a signal that they believe the candidate has a good chance of finding a better offer elsewhere given time.
I think from the candidate’s point of view, I don’t think the question is whether an offer is acceptable so much as whether it is the best offer in their search. Just as a company might like to interview several companies looking for a good fit and make an offer to the best even when others are acceptable, a candidate might want to receive several offers and accept the best even if others are acceptable.
I think a company would be fooling itself if it told stories about selecting for passion or something. If you’re not seeing any competing offers in your hires, you should ask why they aren’t competitive? Maybe your offers are very good or so bad as to not be worth trying to negotiate. Or maybe you’re selecting for the most desperate candidates. Or maybe you’re good at finding hires who perform poorly under whatever interview conditions are most fashionable.
I think from the candidate’s point of view, I don’t think the question is whether an offer is acceptable so much as whether it is the best offer in their search. Just as a company might like to interview several companies looking for a good fit and make an offer to the best even when others are acceptable, a candidate might want to receive several offers and accept the best even if others are acceptable.
I think a company would be fooling itself if it told stories about selecting for passion or something. If you’re not seeing any competing offers in your hires, you should ask why they aren’t competitive? Maybe your offers are very good or so bad as to not be worth trying to negotiate. Or maybe you’re selecting for the most desperate candidates. Or maybe you’re good at finding hires who perform poorly under whatever interview conditions are most fashionable.
Exactly, the company needs to know whether to tell the other candidates in queue to go away, or pause for a while. They can't wait indefinitly so an expiration on the offer is reasonable.
That said, don't take the expiration date too seriously, it's not a hard deadline. If you want a bit more time just say so.
That said, don't take the expiration date too seriously, it's not a hard deadline. If you want a bit more time just say so.
> I've never found the interview process to be reflective of the company. I find the interview process to be a random hodgepodge across the entire industry because nobody knows what they are doing.
If people in a company don't know what they're doing, yet (it appears) have a deathgrip belief in the equivalent of something they found on StackOverflow or in a blog post... doesn't that reflect something about the company?
Or, given that this seems to be a pretty common dysfunction in our industry right now, with not a lot of good role models, maybe any particular org having that problem doesn't reflect too much on them. At the same time, maybe the situation means that an org not cargo-culting, and trying to do it better, tells us something more, and positive, about that org?
If people in a company don't know what they're doing, yet (it appears) have a deathgrip belief in the equivalent of something they found on StackOverflow or in a blog post... doesn't that reflect something about the company?
Or, given that this seems to be a pretty common dysfunction in our industry right now, with not a lot of good role models, maybe any particular org having that problem doesn't reflect too much on them. At the same time, maybe the situation means that an org not cargo-culting, and trying to do it better, tells us something more, and positive, about that org?
I've been working in the industry for 25 years. I've never received even 5 minutes of training on how to interview people, yet I've been asked to interview people dozens of times. This is everywhere from small companies up to huge Fortune 100 companies. The skill set to be an effective programmer and to be an effective interviewer are not the same. But, I don't do interviewing often enough that I've felt the need to seek out specific training on how to do it. So I basically end up winging it when I'm asked to participate in another interview.
Before you're allowed to interview candidates at Amazon, you have to complete a full-day course on how to interview. It covers the kinds of questions you should be asking, potential pitfalls, and what contributes to a hire/no hire decision.
The most important lesson in interviewing I've learnt is to shut up. If you're doing the talking you're not learning about the candidate. Say as little as possible, if they ask good followup questions they will figure stuff out (see also above comment about curiosity).
One of my most frustrating interview experiences was when the lead engineer constantly interrupted me in the middle of my answers, clearly looking to get an answer that confirmed his existing opinions, then stopped the interview because we were out of time. He didn’t let me finish answering a single question, then rejected me because my technical knowledge was “too shallow”. I’m glad I never had to work with the guy.
This seems wrong, generally my groups try to strategize a little as we are getting together to discuss the candidate. making sure we actually covered the important stuff, how to press on soft spots, etc.
It’s group work just like everything else. slowly mix in junior people to train them, but make sure there are enough senior interviewers to make sure we make a decent evaluation.
It’s group work just like everything else. slowly mix in junior people to train them, but make sure there are enough senior interviewers to make sure we make a decent evaluation.
When I worked at BT in the UK you had to do a 2.5 day residential course and pass it before you where allowed to interview people.
It reflects that they might not do interviews so well, but it just doesn’t seem to say anything worth extrapolating to your day to day at that company. Some of the best jobs I’ve had were at companies where engineers ruled and also were the ones sucking at conducting interviews. At those places it was almost a good signal that the interviews sucked. A group of people solving interesting problems, not optimizing for applicant comfort in an interview. Oh well.
There is research on how to do interviews. So if they don't know how to interview, it is clear the company isn't big on doing things in the best way.
The above may or may not be good, but it is a signal.
The above may or may not be good, but it is a signal.
I think part of the problem is interviewers at companies are (a) not properly trained to be interviewers, just pulled from their jobs and asked to interview some candidate on short notice (b) funneled into a certain way of interviewing that isn't optimal.
Large companies have almost always given me the traditional "coding a whiteboard" interview and nitpicked for the whole hour at things that would be irrelevant for the job. Many interviewers approached me with an attitude of "I'm smarter than you and I need to figure out at what point I can outsmart you" rather than trying to discover "How are your abilities complimentary and useful to the team" i.e. "What do you do well that my colleagues and I don't do well, or could use help on".
Large companies have almost always given me the traditional "coding a whiteboard" interview and nitpicked for the whole hour at things that would be irrelevant for the job. Many interviewers approached me with an attitude of "I'm smarter than you and I need to figure out at what point I can outsmart you" rather than trying to discover "How are your abilities complimentary and useful to the team" i.e. "What do you do well that my colleagues and I don't do well, or could use help on".
This was basically my experience on both sides of the process (with a major exception when I interviewed for my current job). I learned from both. On the interviewer side, I sat down and wrote out a framework for how to do a good interview since nobody ever gave me one and I was initially flying blind. (What am I looking for in the person who will do the role? How should I break up the time to check and validate those things?) On the interviewee side, I basically just decided any hiring manager that tries to make you feel bad/stupid almost certainly isn't worth working for. I complete those interviews and try to use them as a learning experience, and I try to exhibit grace in the face of rudeness, then I just move on with my life. It's not always pleasant and required some self-control, but I figure it's a good skill to have on its own.
[deleted]
> If people in a company don't know what they're doing, yet (it appears) have a deathgrip belief in the equivalent of something they found on StackOverflow or in a blog post... doesn't that reflect something about the company?
No, all that it reflects is that the company does not prioritize hiring people who interview well, or training people to interview well.
The company also probably does not prioritize hiring people who speak Finnish, or training people to speak Finnish.
Neither of these two signals are any indication that the day-to-day work environment is going to suck.
No, all that it reflects is that the company does not prioritize hiring people who interview well, or training people to interview well.
The company also probably does not prioritize hiring people who speak Finnish, or training people to speak Finnish.
Neither of these two signals are any indication that the day-to-day work environment is going to suck.
The "deathgrip" is the red flag here
I have doubts that someone stepping in for 2 hours of interviews can consistently and accurately determine whether or not the company in question is in the deathgrip of stack overflow fads and dumb blog posts.
In anything but the most egregious cases, anyone making such an assertion tells me more about themselves, than it does about their interviewers.
In the rest, the correct judgement to make after a bad interview experience is "I don't have enough information to make an accurate judgement about how this company runs."
In anything but the most egregious cases, anyone making such an assertion tells me more about themselves, than it does about their interviewers.
In the rest, the correct judgement to make after a bad interview experience is "I don't have enough information to make an accurate judgement about how this company runs."
Extrapolating that to the actual culture is totally a miss.
That says to me that the culture of the company is based on hacking it together at the last minute. I've never come across a company with a slick recruitment process that wasn't technologically adept too.
That says to me that the culture of the company is based on hacking it together at the last minute. I've never come across a company with a slick recruitment process that wasn't technologically adept too.
"I don't know how to do this, so I will google and skim a youtube video" is very much a culture, isn't it?
The problem I have with the setup the author listed is not the exploding part, it's the pressure to accept and calls from the hiring manager pressing to accept. All well within the exploding offer window.
If the team has this attitude before hiring, it often indicates that it will be "we need A B and C done by first thing Monday morning" after joining. My 2c.
If the team has this attitude before hiring, it often indicates that it will be "we need A B and C done by first thing Monday morning" after joining. My 2c.
You can optimize for avoiding that and still wind up in that exact situation.
This is a complete non-signal.
This is a complete non-signal.
Sure, you can still the up in that situation.
But what are the chances that the hiring manager will pester you within the time frame you supposedly have for considering the offer and then won't do the same when you are employed with your actual tasks?
I would put it close to zero.
But what are the chances that the hiring manager will pester you within the time frame you supposedly have for considering the offer and then won't do the same when you are employed with your actual tasks?
I would put it close to zero.
This isn't the author's reaction to the interview process, it's their reaction to the way the company tried to pressure them into accepting the offer.
> Then the pressure started, incessant calls from the hiring manager and the VP of Engineering, back-to-back emails, all within the allotted time.
I agree with the author that it's a red flag - it communicates that they don't respect boundaries or behave professionally.
> Then the pressure started, incessant calls from the hiring manager and the VP of Engineering, back-to-back emails, all within the allotted time.
I agree with the author that it's a red flag - it communicates that they don't respect boundaries or behave professionally.
You’re right, the author isn’t just complaining about the exploding offer, but the high-pressure boiler room sales tactics. It just reeks of desperation, good for him for knowing his worth and walking away.
I completely agree. I work for a big company. I've been here for 18 years. It is a fantastic place to work. The people, the pay, the flexibility, the meaningful work, all are great. No place is perfect, but I haven't yet found anywhere I'd rather be.
However, our hiring process is sometimes shameful. You name it, we've probably done it. We've ghosted candidates that did really well in their interview. We've taken weeks to make an offer, and we've asked candidates to fly across the country for a 2nd onsite interview because some middle manager thought that Team X should talk to them.
We're getting better, but sometimes there are legitimate reasons for things like delays and ghosting that can't be disclosed to the candidate. I try to keep this in mind when I get treated similarly by other companies.
However, our hiring process is sometimes shameful. You name it, we've probably done it. We've ghosted candidates that did really well in their interview. We've taken weeks to make an offer, and we've asked candidates to fly across the country for a 2nd onsite interview because some middle manager thought that Team X should talk to them.
We're getting better, but sometimes there are legitimate reasons for things like delays and ghosting that can't be disclosed to the candidate. I try to keep this in mind when I get treated similarly by other companies.
> We're getting better, but sometimes there are legitimate reasons for things like delays and ghosting that can't be disclosed to the candidate.
Can you elaborate? I'm having trouble imagining a legitimate reason to ghost a candidate, other than a court order or National Security Letter.
Can you elaborate? I'm having trouble imagining a legitimate reason to ghost a candidate, other than a court order or National Security Letter.
We make medical devices. They are surprisingly complicated things, and many peoples' lives depend on them. There's also a lot of ways in which they might potentially fail, and these failures can manifest years after the product has been in the field.
When there's even the slightest hint of a potential safety issue, it quickly becomes the top priority for a whole bunch of people. Most issues turn out to be false alarms, but we can never assume that. Lots of other things get put on hold, including hiring.
If you're an unlucky candidate who happens to interview right before one of these shit storms, you might be ghosted for a couple of weeks at least. Obviously we can't share the reasons for the ghosting, as much as we'd like to. Even a polite response from HR like, "Sally really enjoyed talking to you but she's unexpectedly tied up in something" can be market-moving information if you find Sally's role on LinkedIn and tie it to recent news about the company.
When there's even the slightest hint of a potential safety issue, it quickly becomes the top priority for a whole bunch of people. Most issues turn out to be false alarms, but we can never assume that. Lots of other things get put on hold, including hiring.
If you're an unlucky candidate who happens to interview right before one of these shit storms, you might be ghosted for a couple of weeks at least. Obviously we can't share the reasons for the ghosting, as much as we'd like to. Even a polite response from HR like, "Sally really enjoyed talking to you but she's unexpectedly tied up in something" can be market-moving information if you find Sally's role on LinkedIn and tie it to recent news about the company.
> Even a polite response from HR like, "Sally really enjoyed talking to you but she's unexpectedly tied up in something" can be market-moving information if you find Sally's role on LinkedIn and tie it to recent news about the company.
So a candidate being ghosted can also be market moving because it means the same thing.
Just have HR stall a bit, maybe you're finishing the round of interviews for other candidates or something, it's not that hard.
So a candidate being ghosted can also be market moving because it means the same thing.
Just have HR stall a bit, maybe you're finishing the round of interviews for other candidates or something, it's not that hard.
> "Sally really enjoyed talking to you but she's unexpectedly tied up in something" can be market-moving information if you find Sally's role on LinkedIn and tie it to recent news about the company.
I'm curious if this level of caution is truly required to meet an SEC rule. I've never heard of another company feeling the need to be this secretive for market reasons.
I'm curious if this level of caution is truly required to meet an SEC rule. I've never heard of another company feeling the need to be this secretive for market reasons.
SEC rules aren't the only concern, and "market moving" was perhaps too specific a phrase. There are lots of legitimate legal and financial reasons that a company may choose to be circumspect in its communication.
As one totally hypothetical example, let's say that the project a candidate is being interviewed to work on is suddenly in jeopardy. This could be due to sudden unexpected financial hardship, like a big contract falling apart at the very last minute. Or it could be due to a new competitive threat resulting in a need to shift resources elsewhere. Or the new CEO just doesn't think it's worthwhile. Or, maybe the project ultimately proceeds and the candidate gets an offer.
In any of these situations, a company can easily find itself the target of an investor lawsuit if the reason for the hiring delay is inadvertently disclosed and there is some ensuing stock movement, even if no SEC rules are violated.
You might still think that this is overly cautious, and you may be right. Either way, ghosting doesn't only happen because people are inconsiderate (though that is certainly a reason), and I personally try not to infer too much about the culture when it happens to me.
As one totally hypothetical example, let's say that the project a candidate is being interviewed to work on is suddenly in jeopardy. This could be due to sudden unexpected financial hardship, like a big contract falling apart at the very last minute. Or it could be due to a new competitive threat resulting in a need to shift resources elsewhere. Or the new CEO just doesn't think it's worthwhile. Or, maybe the project ultimately proceeds and the candidate gets an offer.
In any of these situations, a company can easily find itself the target of an investor lawsuit if the reason for the hiring delay is inadvertently disclosed and there is some ensuing stock movement, even if no SEC rules are violated.
You might still think that this is overly cautious, and you may be right. Either way, ghosting doesn't only happen because people are inconsiderate (though that is certainly a reason), and I personally try not to infer too much about the culture when it happens to me.
[deleted]
At a previous large company more than once I had to explain that the interview process 'is HR's show'...but once the job starts it is now 'our show' and they don't have to worry about that song and dance anymore.
It's frustrating that it is that way, but the hiring at that company was a whole other song and dance that took very little input from anyone about the hiring process.
It's frustrating that it is that way, but the hiring at that company was a whole other song and dance that took very little input from anyone about the hiring process.
> but the hiring at that company was a whole other song and dance that took very little input from anyone about the hiring process.
That doesn't sound healthy to me.
That doesn't sound healthy to me.
For sure, seem like they will treat lots of other things the same. What about comp? Promotions?
The company was large and paid well, outside of very few situations HR didn't actually decide what people got paid, they just clogged up the recruiting, interview, and actually finalizing the OK to hire someone process.
Sadly that is my experience with HR at most any mid to large size company.
That’s not how it works at all.
First of all interviews are a two way interview. Your company will be judged based on it.
Also people come in touch with hr later, and usually in high pressure situations. If HR was difficult during the interview that’s a big red flag for later on in case you have to deal with them.
First of all interviews are a two way interview. Your company will be judged based on it.
Also people come in touch with hr later, and usually in high pressure situations. If HR was difficult during the interview that’s a big red flag for later on in case you have to deal with them.
That's totally how it can work, if it should or not is another story.
I don't doubt people judged the company based on their interactions with HR, but that's HR's responsibility IMO. I gave my feedback on a few occasions, but they didn't take any action based on it. At that point their failures are 'not my job'.
As for any other HR interactions most folks interacted with them as little as possible. At big companies (and many others..) I find HR is there for the company to manage risk, not help, I expect very little from that kind of department.
I don't doubt people judged the company based on their interactions with HR, but that's HR's responsibility IMO. I gave my feedback on a few occasions, but they didn't take any action based on it. At that point their failures are 'not my job'.
As for any other HR interactions most folks interacted with them as little as possible. At big companies (and many others..) I find HR is there for the company to manage risk, not help, I expect very little from that kind of department.
Sure HR is there to manage risk. If they already are shown to be like this in the interview I would not be safe if they decided to "manage risk" with me later on. I luckily never had to deal with HR, but it can happen to anyone.
I have personally given up on "whiteboarding people"... reminds me of waterboarding.
I skim the resume, underline anything we use internally and talk to them about experiences.
We've done over 300 interviews in the last expansion year (2017) because we had to build a brand new development office (+50 devs).
After hiring all of these people, we've quantified this as three things: Curiosity, Ability to Learn and Ability to Listen. 2 out of 3 is good, but 3 is best. Almost every person we've hired who has been a success has had some of these, they're willing to be curious about new technologies and how things work, they are capable of learning (desiring isn't the same thing, they are capable of it), and listening is a good trait for enabling communication.
It is still possible that we chose these traits yet rejected other traits which are far more successful, and there is a chance we also rejected good people who would have also succeeded.
I skim the resume, underline anything we use internally and talk to them about experiences.
We've done over 300 interviews in the last expansion year (2017) because we had to build a brand new development office (+50 devs).
After hiring all of these people, we've quantified this as three things: Curiosity, Ability to Learn and Ability to Listen. 2 out of 3 is good, but 3 is best. Almost every person we've hired who has been a success has had some of these, they're willing to be curious about new technologies and how things work, they are capable of learning (desiring isn't the same thing, they are capable of it), and listening is a good trait for enabling communication.
It is still possible that we chose these traits yet rejected other traits which are far more successful, and there is a chance we also rejected good people who would have also succeeded.
I don't exactly whiteboard, because in the past several years I've only interviewed online and while I'm looking for the same qualities, I found that (a simple) coding challenge does help with determining these. (I'm also looking for the smarts, but not "google smart" scale.)
Just by struggling with a (really not that hard) challenge tells a lot about how well someone is able to listen. E.g. when you try to give hints to them. It also shows a bit about their demand for producing quality work. (The first solution they provide is usually not bug free. They miss edge cases. Then they add conditions to check for them but those are not needed because the algorithm can be written in a pretty simple form. BTW, I've been using the same challenge for years. Whether someone is willing to simplify shows a lot about how much they care about the quality of their work.)
But yeah, I found that usual chit chat about technology with a few directed questions also help (and I use them).
Just by struggling with a (really not that hard) challenge tells a lot about how well someone is able to listen. E.g. when you try to give hints to them. It also shows a bit about their demand for producing quality work. (The first solution they provide is usually not bug free. They miss edge cases. Then they add conditions to check for them but those are not needed because the algorithm can be written in a pretty simple form. BTW, I've been using the same challenge for years. Whether someone is willing to simplify shows a lot about how much they care about the quality of their work.)
But yeah, I found that usual chit chat about technology with a few directed questions also help (and I use them).
What I would actually do for your company on a day to day basis is very iterative with the IDE, API reference, unit tests and actual performance correcting me 20 times in ten minutes, allowing me to avoid all pitfalls and synthesize new pitfalls to avoid.
What I would do during your interview is performance theatre and it would tell you nothing. I would lie to you about whether I have seen the problem you presented before, because I would only be there because I was on an interview-circuit with every interviewer that thinks they are so clever and hasn't changed their question for years and I recycle and adapt answers, and for you, the answer to your question is probably listed verbatim on Blind, Glassdoor or Leetcode forums about your company and role.
What I would do during your interview is performance theatre and it would tell you nothing. I would lie to you about whether I have seen the problem you presented before, because I would only be there because I was on an interview-circuit with every interviewer that thinks they are so clever and hasn't changed their question for years and I recycle and adapt answers, and for you, the answer to your question is probably listed verbatim on Blind, Glassdoor or Leetcode forums about your company and role.
I may not have been very obvious, but the puzzle I use in these interviews is very simple. So simple that I was a bit embarrassed until I've learned about fizz buzz. At first it was meant to be a warm up puzzle, but I stopped saying that basically on the first week of my interviewer career. When we interviewed a java architect guy (a friend of my then co-founder) who worked in that capacity for a big telco and completely failed at it.
It felt pretty bad, because he knew there would be another, harder task and we knew that he had no chance, so what do you do. But again, the task is simple, you don't need an IDE, you don't need to use any API. Some people do the very obvious solution (though that never occurred to me until I saw someone going down that path) which does need maybe 1-2 calls to the stdlib. But I always tell them that syntax details don't matter, they can use any language, and if they want to use some lib or API then they can just say that and I'll believe the thing is there and the call does what they say it does. (Unless it's obviously not true then I'll say how I think it works.) But it's mostly theoretical, because as I've said you don't need any APIs (though some people sometimes ask about the exact semantics of some less common language features and then we just agree that it works the way they say it works). It may sound cryptic, but that's just because I don't want to give away the puzzle :). E.g. think about what happens when an addition (using the plus operator) causes an overflow in their language of choice. It's just an analogy and even the thing it's an analogy for (that came up during one of the interviews) is not needed, but given how some candidates solve it, it may come up. And then I'll ask what could happen then, how do they think it works. If I know how that works I'll tell them if not, I'll just believe it works the way they say. Doesn't matter.
It's not a theatre. The idea is to somehow simulate a situation similar to what you'd experience during work from the perspective of problem solving . E.g. you'd be surprised, but a lot of people just don't think about testing their solution. So if you are really testing habitually, then I'm pretty sure I'd see (hear) you walk through the code, and run your test cases in your head. Maybe you'd start with stating test inputs and expected test outputs. A few people I've seen actually did that. And of course, these all register and tell a lot about how you work and how you think.
>every interviewer that thinks they are so clever and hasn't changed their question for years and I recycle and adapt answers, and for you, > the answer to your question is probably listed verbatim on Blind, Glassdoor or Leetcode forums about your company and role.
1. My company is not on Glassdoor or Leetcode. It doesn't apply to small companies 2. The task is simple, it's not worth memorizing it. Actually it's so simple that if someone needs to memorize this, then they will have a problem memorizing harder puzzles for sure. 3. It's pretty easy to identify if someone knows the quiz (though, of course they can pretend that they don't, but that's borderline sociopathic) 4. I also use a code review challenge which is harder to reproduce, though some guy could be unfair and post it there 5. If this becomes a real problem for me, I'll probably add pair programming to the mix
I understand the motivation for some people to want to circumvent interviews, thinking those don't do justice for them. It's hard to tell. I've never been afraid of interviews, though I've never really interviewed to any job where I though I had to get in. The problem with posting questions and trying to circumvent is that the response will probably be that interviewers just keep changing the questions which will result in less predictable outcomes. Or everyone will just require a long, take-home project (though you can game that one pretty easily too) or throw more automation at you. (e.g. a 1.5 hours long HackerRank quiz just to get through to a human.) Seems like and instance of the prisoners dilemma to me.
It felt pretty bad, because he knew there would be another, harder task and we knew that he had no chance, so what do you do. But again, the task is simple, you don't need an IDE, you don't need to use any API. Some people do the very obvious solution (though that never occurred to me until I saw someone going down that path) which does need maybe 1-2 calls to the stdlib. But I always tell them that syntax details don't matter, they can use any language, and if they want to use some lib or API then they can just say that and I'll believe the thing is there and the call does what they say it does. (Unless it's obviously not true then I'll say how I think it works.) But it's mostly theoretical, because as I've said you don't need any APIs (though some people sometimes ask about the exact semantics of some less common language features and then we just agree that it works the way they say it works). It may sound cryptic, but that's just because I don't want to give away the puzzle :). E.g. think about what happens when an addition (using the plus operator) causes an overflow in their language of choice. It's just an analogy and even the thing it's an analogy for (that came up during one of the interviews) is not needed, but given how some candidates solve it, it may come up. And then I'll ask what could happen then, how do they think it works. If I know how that works I'll tell them if not, I'll just believe it works the way they say. Doesn't matter.
It's not a theatre. The idea is to somehow simulate a situation similar to what you'd experience during work from the perspective of problem solving . E.g. you'd be surprised, but a lot of people just don't think about testing their solution. So if you are really testing habitually, then I'm pretty sure I'd see (hear) you walk through the code, and run your test cases in your head. Maybe you'd start with stating test inputs and expected test outputs. A few people I've seen actually did that. And of course, these all register and tell a lot about how you work and how you think.
>every interviewer that thinks they are so clever and hasn't changed their question for years and I recycle and adapt answers, and for you, > the answer to your question is probably listed verbatim on Blind, Glassdoor or Leetcode forums about your company and role.
1. My company is not on Glassdoor or Leetcode. It doesn't apply to small companies 2. The task is simple, it's not worth memorizing it. Actually it's so simple that if someone needs to memorize this, then they will have a problem memorizing harder puzzles for sure. 3. It's pretty easy to identify if someone knows the quiz (though, of course they can pretend that they don't, but that's borderline sociopathic) 4. I also use a code review challenge which is harder to reproduce, though some guy could be unfair and post it there 5. If this becomes a real problem for me, I'll probably add pair programming to the mix
I understand the motivation for some people to want to circumvent interviews, thinking those don't do justice for them. It's hard to tell. I've never been afraid of interviews, though I've never really interviewed to any job where I though I had to get in. The problem with posting questions and trying to circumvent is that the response will probably be that interviewers just keep changing the questions which will result in less predictable outcomes. Or everyone will just require a long, take-home project (though you can game that one pretty easily too) or throw more automation at you. (e.g. a 1.5 hours long HackerRank quiz just to get through to a human.) Seems like and instance of the prisoners dilemma to me.
I'd completely fail your interviews and that's not a criticism to you.
I am fairly experienced and I can simulate stuff in my head quite quickly but this often has a detrimental effect -- I get a few ideas, see all their flaws and get an analysis paralysis. I flunked one otherwise promising interview by doing this.
Sometimes you just freeze, you know. I have confidence of having excellent problem-solving skills but they are not always summonable on demand right at this minute.
I have a fairly successful -- if very rich on employers -- career so I should probably view the above as a personal weakness and not as something inherently bad, but I am not sure.
How do you feel about such people?
(I usually prefer a take-home assignment even if it's more work. It gives me a chance to show excellent craftsmanship and attention to detail, which I really want to demonstrate during the interview process.)
I am fairly experienced and I can simulate stuff in my head quite quickly but this often has a detrimental effect -- I get a few ideas, see all their flaws and get an analysis paralysis. I flunked one otherwise promising interview by doing this.
Sometimes you just freeze, you know. I have confidence of having excellent problem-solving skills but they are not always summonable on demand right at this minute.
I have a fairly successful -- if very rich on employers -- career so I should probably view the above as a personal weakness and not as something inherently bad, but I am not sure.
How do you feel about such people?
(I usually prefer a take-home assignment even if it's more work. It gives me a chance to show excellent craftsmanship and attention to detail, which I really want to demonstrate during the interview process.)
Well, it's hard to tell. You don't know the difficulty of the task, I don't know your tendency to stress and freeze. But the puzzle I use is really just a bit more complex than fizz-buzz. So much so, that when I learned about fizz-buzz years after I started using this one, I was kind of relieved. Because they way I've gotten into using it is that I had to interview a guy to help me with a freelancing project (for a long time client) while we were working hard on finalizing a VC investment into our first startup. And since I was really busy with the startup, I just started figuring out and googling for a puzzle like 15 minutes before the interview started. This was meant to be the warm up task, I've just googled it to see if there is a trivial solution besides what I thought up. I've also took another one from topcoder (a medium hard from the level where I was at years ago when I stopped playing, which it self was something medium-ish, can't remember exactly).
Since in the past few years I've only been interviewing freelancers for temporary positions on the projects I've worked on, I kept going with this simpler task. Now even with that, some people struggle. And I see that as a very bad sign. But I'm always giving hints and helping. I always start by saying that if you have any questions or feel like discussing an idea, feel free. And if they keep thinking and don't tell anything I'll start the discussion. (But that's part of the test, because, you know, things like this happen during real work: you get stuck, you don't understand the requirements, etc. And then I will want you to reach out and ask/discuss.)
Another task I do during the interviews is code review. Even if you do badly on the first one. The piece of code (now actually two pieces) has a lot of room for improvement, while only about 20 lines long. That's a totally different kind of task, less about problem solving and I guess less prone to cause anyone to freeze.
Since in the past few years I've only been interviewing freelancers for temporary positions on the projects I've worked on, I kept going with this simpler task. Now even with that, some people struggle. And I see that as a very bad sign. But I'm always giving hints and helping. I always start by saying that if you have any questions or feel like discussing an idea, feel free. And if they keep thinking and don't tell anything I'll start the discussion. (But that's part of the test, because, you know, things like this happen during real work: you get stuck, you don't understand the requirements, etc. And then I will want you to reach out and ask/discuss.)
Another task I do during the interviews is code review. Even if you do badly on the first one. The piece of code (now actually two pieces) has a lot of room for improvement, while only about 20 lines long. That's a totally different kind of task, less about problem solving and I guess less prone to cause anyone to freeze.
> But the puzzle I use is really just a bit more complex than fizz-buzz.
Oh. We kind of talked past each other then. Sorry!
Just today I had ~15 minutes to craft a basic SQL update statement generator based on an (almost) arbitrary JSON input. Save for me misunderstanding the requirements initially, I aced it and the interviewer was impressed.
General problem-solving and chatting about real problems that the company has I found to be the best format of technical interviews. One experienced programmer can extremely easily call out BS if the candidate is faking their expertise.
---
As for me freezing, yeah, it can happen but I accepted it. I can't have all the IT problem space in my head all the time. I expect the interviewer to be flexible in these cases. If not, oh well, life goes on.
Oh. We kind of talked past each other then. Sorry!
Just today I had ~15 minutes to craft a basic SQL update statement generator based on an (almost) arbitrary JSON input. Save for me misunderstanding the requirements initially, I aced it and the interviewer was impressed.
General problem-solving and chatting about real problems that the company has I found to be the best format of technical interviews. One experienced programmer can extremely easily call out BS if the candidate is faking their expertise.
---
As for me freezing, yeah, it can happen but I accepted it. I can't have all the IT problem space in my head all the time. I expect the interviewer to be flexible in these cases. If not, oh well, life goes on.
same, I stopped doing whiteboarding. I have people solve some domain knowledge exercise (like their specific platform or IDE or package manager, stuff that would actually spend the company time on a day to day basis). Most companies could get away with that, even "big tech" can because their employees leave after 2 years too, before they are even eligible to join some other teams at some companies.
I wish I met more interviewers like you.
A few years back, I built out a team of about 30-ish technical people and had a similar experience, but I phrased it a bit differently: Aptitude and Enthusiasm were the best predictors of success, and I phrased most of my questions in a way to get a gauge of those two metrics.
"Aptitude" correlates strongly to your "ability to learn," "enthusiasm" correlates loosely to your "curiosity." I think "ability to listen" is more of an obvious prerequisite to being a functional employee.
The real takeaway is that experience doesn't matter nearly as much as people think it does, especially in a company that has a culture of ramping up new hires very well.
"Aptitude" correlates strongly to your "ability to learn," "enthusiasm" correlates loosely to your "curiosity." I think "ability to listen" is more of an obvious prerequisite to being a functional employee.
The real takeaway is that experience doesn't matter nearly as much as people think it does, especially in a company that has a culture of ramping up new hires very well.
How do you easily test an interviewee's "Aptitude"? Especially in a developer sense. I struggled with how to do this when asked to help with interviews in the past.
Yeah - sadly, it's extremely subjective. In the beginning, I hired some lousy people and some great people, and eventually I got much better at quickly and accurately sizing up someone's competence, independent of their personality. The shy people need some softball questions to help them feel relaxed; the bigger personalities need to be poked and prodded a bit to see how they react under a little bit of pressure. A good team has a mix of different personalities, and if they're all bright and eager, they'll get along just fine.
Anyway, to answer your actual question: One thing I'd always ask at some point is, "Can you tell me about a time where you solved a hard problem?"
They'll think you're trying to gauge their problem solving abilities, but their answer will give you much more valuable insights regarding their aptitude and enthusiasm. While they're answering, you'll get to ponder:
"What does this person think is hard?"
"How well can they communicate a complex topic?"
"Does solving hard problems excite them?" etc
Anyway, to answer your actual question: One thing I'd always ask at some point is, "Can you tell me about a time where you solved a hard problem?"
They'll think you're trying to gauge their problem solving abilities, but their answer will give you much more valuable insights regarding their aptitude and enthusiasm. While they're answering, you'll get to ponder:
"What does this person think is hard?"
"How well can they communicate a complex topic?"
"Does solving hard problems excite them?" etc
How do you probe for these skills? Are there any questions that help you to identify them?
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)".
How do you deal with "I don't want to learn new language X"?
I do investigate some time with new languages/tech to a degree, but to the extent I have time to learn, I tend to want to go deeper in the things I have competence in already. There's generally always more to learn (between the language itself evolving and the ecosystem developing) such that taking time away from those areas to 'explore' some hot new thing tends to not have very useful ROI.
I've done 'learn new language X' for... way too many years already, and prefer to get better at what I know. That doesn't mean I never learn new things or new tech, but it's generally in service of a defined goal as opposed to "oooh that looks neat...".
I've been doing this as a hobby for 40 years, and professionally for around 26. I have the feeling some places would look at 'the old guy' (like me) as 'the stick in the mud who never learns the new tech', yet in some cases I've been 'learning new tech' since before they were born.
Some of the original question was rhetorical - I already know how some places react to the "I don't spend time learning multiple new languages/stacks every few months" line. But... keep it in mind that there may be other ways to measure that curiosity besides just looking at 'time with new language'. ;)
I do investigate some time with new languages/tech to a degree, but to the extent I have time to learn, I tend to want to go deeper in the things I have competence in already. There's generally always more to learn (between the language itself evolving and the ecosystem developing) such that taking time away from those areas to 'explore' some hot new thing tends to not have very useful ROI.
I've done 'learn new language X' for... way too many years already, and prefer to get better at what I know. That doesn't mean I never learn new things or new tech, but it's generally in service of a defined goal as opposed to "oooh that looks neat...".
I've been doing this as a hobby for 40 years, and professionally for around 26. I have the feeling some places would look at 'the old guy' (like me) as 'the stick in the mud who never learns the new tech', yet in some cases I've been 'learning new tech' since before they were born.
Some of the original question was rhetorical - I already know how some places react to the "I don't spend time learning multiple new languages/stacks every few months" line. But... keep it in mind that there may be other ways to measure that curiosity besides just looking at 'time with new language'. ;)
> I tend to want to go deeper in the things I have competence in already.
That's still learning, the issue is someone who says "Well, I don't have to learn anything new".... "at all".
That's still learning, the issue is someone who says "Well, I don't have to learn anything new".... "at all".
This comes up a lot on HN and the common objection is that the criteria you listed discriminates against talented people who have families (for example) and therefore no spare time to indulge their curiosities by learning new languages or whatever.
It's perhaps better to say, look for people who like to learn how things work. Good tech people can explain the plumbing.
Wanting to learn something is fine, being curious about a new technology is fine. It's the people who don't want to learn anything and have no curiosity about new technology. I spent 30 minutes talking to someone about their plan to build a machine learning machine and try to learn some machine learning in python.
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.
How do you deal with this in your process?
How do you deal with this in your process?
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.
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.
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. :)
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.
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....
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.
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.
Haha, usually, in the context of interviews, you don't think of gender as being a type of background.
Nice try, AI! We, humans, will never reveal our secrets. And you, my friend, won't replace us in this soon.
You just speak with the person about their interests, hobbies, past projects they’ve done.
Really? Yes, sometimes you catch them an interviewer on a bad day or something, and often people are just cargo culting what they're familiar with, but if their interview process is a complete mess their company likely is too.
Once I interviewed somewhere and their engineers seemed very burnt out, an interviewer I was scheduled to meet with had left the company, and two of the interview rounds seemed like they had no idea what to ask me. I ran away screaming as fast as I could.
Another time I interviewed by a company who was recently acquired and missed my scheduled interview time (twice!) so I decided to withdraw. My friend working there left the company a year later, saying that it was a complete mess there.
Otoh a friend accepted an offer at a company because of their interview process - it was extremely well thought out and designed to be respectful of candidates and test what really mattered. Those values and mindset carried over to her experience at the company.
Once I interviewed somewhere and their engineers seemed very burnt out, an interviewer I was scheduled to meet with had left the company, and two of the interview rounds seemed like they had no idea what to ask me. I ran away screaming as fast as I could.
Another time I interviewed by a company who was recently acquired and missed my scheduled interview time (twice!) so I decided to withdraw. My friend working there left the company a year later, saying that it was a complete mess there.
Otoh a friend accepted an offer at a company because of their interview process - it was extremely well thought out and designed to be respectful of candidates and test what really mattered. Those values and mindset carried over to her experience at the company.
Yes and no. At a smaller company? Probably. But after a certain point many companies realize their interview process is a mess or sloppy and bring someone in to standardize it/spend time standardizing it.
Will the DevOps team that interviews for 1 role a year working on a very specific platform still have a wonky interview process that might but something the manager put together or just feels like asking? Sure but on average the company will have their shit together.
If they haven't done this then it is reflective of the culture. Why didnt they do this? Do they not really care about recruiting? The experience potential new hires have during the interview process? Do they just not think its important? Those are all things that are reflective of the culture.
Will the DevOps team that interviews for 1 role a year working on a very specific platform still have a wonky interview process that might but something the manager put together or just feels like asking? Sure but on average the company will have their shit together.
If they haven't done this then it is reflective of the culture. Why didnt they do this? Do they not really care about recruiting? The experience potential new hires have during the interview process? Do they just not think its important? Those are all things that are reflective of the culture.
>I turned down the [exploding] offer because the experience got me thinking about the company’s work culture. Were the methods employed by the company to get me to accept the offer indicative of their work culture?
What I line - I would never hire this person. There are people who see big deals when much more obvious reasons exist, they just can't see beyond themselves.
In this case, orgs I work with our small, we almost always have a #2 and #3 candidate ready to go. It's rude to drag this out more than it needs to be for everyone, and it tells you how interested someone is if they want to sit on an offer. 2 days, let us know. If you are not interested, fine.
Note, I've normally already talked through comp packages and ranges early and asked them if this is in the range or what they are looking for. If they have been straight at this stage I normally get offers signed within hours. That's a good sign for everyone.
What I line - I would never hire this person. There are people who see big deals when much more obvious reasons exist, they just can't see beyond themselves.
In this case, orgs I work with our small, we almost always have a #2 and #3 candidate ready to go. It's rude to drag this out more than it needs to be for everyone, and it tells you how interested someone is if they want to sit on an offer. 2 days, let us know. If you are not interested, fine.
Note, I've normally already talked through comp packages and ranges early and asked them if this is in the range or what they are looking for. If they have been straight at this stage I normally get offers signed within hours. That's a good sign for everyone.
Had similar marathon 8 years ago and it is draining.
Now, being on the other side (hiring folks for a startup), I would argue that some of flags are a bit misleading. Examples: “Undue pressure to accept an offer letter” - interviews are not free, companies are investing eng time into evaluating each candidate and once they find great one, they really want them to join. They also do not want to be part of a bidding war, so it is natural to impose limits (some folks do go overboard). Recency bias also tells us that if you sit on the offer for a long time and continue interviewing, chances of you accepting the first one are going down. And something I learned only recently - offer stage is also part of the interview, it shows how 2 sides will be working together in the future.
“ Not enough clarity about your role” - normal for growing startups. I tell the candidates - here is what we do, pick something you like and run with it. Of course it is biased towards entrepreneurial types who thrive in uncertainty, but that is the state of many startups.
Mostly agree with other examples. One fun thought, they had 60 interviews. Assume some were 1 hour phone screens and some 1 + 5 hours virtual on sites. If we do 50:50, the industry spent 30 + 30 * 6 = 210 hours of eng time + debriefs, outreaches, negotiations, ... I think statistically, it is not in the interests of companies to participate in such marathons as ROI will be low.
Now, being on the other side (hiring folks for a startup), I would argue that some of flags are a bit misleading. Examples: “Undue pressure to accept an offer letter” - interviews are not free, companies are investing eng time into evaluating each candidate and once they find great one, they really want them to join. They also do not want to be part of a bidding war, so it is natural to impose limits (some folks do go overboard). Recency bias also tells us that if you sit on the offer for a long time and continue interviewing, chances of you accepting the first one are going down. And something I learned only recently - offer stage is also part of the interview, it shows how 2 sides will be working together in the future.
“ Not enough clarity about your role” - normal for growing startups. I tell the candidates - here is what we do, pick something you like and run with it. Of course it is biased towards entrepreneurial types who thrive in uncertainty, but that is the state of many startups.
Mostly agree with other examples. One fun thought, they had 60 interviews. Assume some were 1 hour phone screens and some 1 + 5 hours virtual on sites. If we do 50:50, the industry spent 30 + 30 * 6 = 210 hours of eng time + debriefs, outreaches, negotiations, ... I think statistically, it is not in the interests of companies to participate in such marathons as ROI will be low.
>They also do not want to be part of a bidding war, so it is natural to impose limits (some folks do go overboard).
AKA accept our lowball offer before you realize how much you're worth
AKA accept our lowball offer before you realize how much you're worth
No, the offer might be good, but I’m just not willing to wait a month as there are other candidates in the pipeline.
Might be but if you aren't willing to let them hear their other offers and negotiate you probably aren't willing to hire the best people.
I’m, I just not willing to wait for them. It also tells me that they are not interested in the company, and the best people both good and interested. And yes, it saves money (both hiring and motivated folks produce more) - no surprise here
Fun fact, that when I’m looking for a job I will be arguing like you.
Fun fact, that when I’m looking for a job I will be arguing like you.
Every auction has a time limit
These "exploding offers" are usualy 24-48 hours and thats not enough time to get any feedback from your other potential employers.
Sure, but the higher the pressure to sign soon, the more urgent it is to hire someone. I once signed a contract where there was even a fine if I wouldn't show up on the first working day. After I started it turned out there were 10 guys before me in the last 12 months ;) Needless to say, the work culture was horrible.
> “ Not enough clarity about your role” - normal for growing startups.
Everybody claims this, even Bigcorp. I think it's an okay point but the more unclear, the more likely it is that there is a constant pressure about the role.
> “ Not enough clarity about your role” - normal for growing startups.
Everybody claims this, even Bigcorp. I think it's an okay point but the more unclear, the more likely it is that there is a constant pressure about the role.
It's perfectly normal and reasonable to put a reasonable deadline on getting a response to an offer because the company must indeed fill the role, ideally this should be communicated when the offer is made. But putting pressure or having an "exploding offers" really is a trick to create urgency exactly in the same way time-limited sales work and the aim is the same: Making people buy things without shopping around.
Also offers are not symmetric for the same role. A candidate can receive and evaluate multiple offers and pick the best one. Companies cannot send out multiple offers for the same role and pick the best candidate that responds.
>Not enough clarity about your role
This is true at large organizations as well, it's not like there is some jigsaw puzzle waiting for the candidate that's a perfect fit.
This is true at large organizations as well, it's not like there is some jigsaw puzzle waiting for the candidate that's a perfect fit.
To add to that, role clarity is inversely proportional to the seniority.
I got hired on for a position once where the job description was retroactively written for me after I came in for an interview. I suppose in retrospect that means it was written in a way that it probably wasn't a good fit for most people.
That seems a little odd, maybe they had some KPIs around hiring/fit or something and wanted to fluff their numbers.
I'm not going to be specific, but at a certain level, companies will hire people that execs know/have worked with and figure out the best role for them.
> but at a certain level, companies will hire people that execs know/have worked with
This happens more frequently than people realise. Execs depend on, to state the obvious, a loyal next line leaders to get work done. And more often than not newly hired execs are under pressure to begin showing results in about 8 months or so. Hiring their loyalists gives them a very good chance of showing positive impact. Otherwise they need to wrangle with existing reports and peers to win their trust and loyalty which is a time consuming process.
I've seen this happen almost at all the places I've worked in
This happens more frequently than people realise. Execs depend on, to state the obvious, a loyal next line leaders to get work done. And more often than not newly hired execs are under pressure to begin showing results in about 8 months or so. Hiring their loyalists gives them a very good chance of showing positive impact. Otherwise they need to wrangle with existing reports and peers to win their trust and loyalty which is a time consuming process.
I've seen this happen almost at all the places I've worked in
at a certain level, companies will hire people that execs know/have worked with
In Wales we call this “jobs for the boyos”.
In Wales we call this “jobs for the boyos”.
"Old boys network" in the US. Companies do need to guard against excessively hiring only people with the right connections. On the other hand, personal networks are certainly a thing and companies rely heavily on referrals for hiring. I have to confess that I haven't gotten a job by applying blind/via a recruiter for 35 years.
Everything from the hiring company's perspective also applies to the candidate.
The company is investing a lot of time and effort in the interviewing process. The candidate has been preparing for weeks for an assessment that has nothing to do with their actual job, and is being assigned multiple take-home challenges that take 4-8 hours of their time, etc.
The company wants to feel free to shop around and spend as much time as they want to hire "the right candidate?" The candidate is entitled to the same, shopping around for "the right company."
The company wants to avoid a bidding war to get the candidate for the least amount of money they can get away with? The candidate wants a bidding war so they can get the most amount of money they can get away with.
The company asks the candidate what salary they are expecting. The candidate can simply ask what the range for the position is, since the company has that information.
The company spends the entire interview assessing the candidate, and maybe asks if they have any questions at the last minute? The candidate is entitled to know just as much about what they are potentially getting themselves into by accepting an offer as the company is by hiring a candidate.
etc.
The process is a 2-way negotiation between equal parties.
The company is investing a lot of time and effort in the interviewing process. The candidate has been preparing for weeks for an assessment that has nothing to do with their actual job, and is being assigned multiple take-home challenges that take 4-8 hours of their time, etc.
The company wants to feel free to shop around and spend as much time as they want to hire "the right candidate?" The candidate is entitled to the same, shopping around for "the right company."
The company wants to avoid a bidding war to get the candidate for the least amount of money they can get away with? The candidate wants a bidding war so they can get the most amount of money they can get away with.
The company asks the candidate what salary they are expecting. The candidate can simply ask what the range for the position is, since the company has that information.
The company spends the entire interview assessing the candidate, and maybe asks if they have any questions at the last minute? The candidate is entitled to know just as much about what they are potentially getting themselves into by accepting an offer as the company is by hiring a candidate.
etc.
The process is a 2-way negotiation between equal parties.
> The process is a 2-way negotiation between equal parties.
This is the only statement in your comment I take issue with. The company has access to all kinds of local, regional, and national salary data, as well as a holistic idea of the kind of candidates they're getting. If it's a large company, they have people whose only job is negotiation (especially around salary).
It's a decidedly unequal negotiation, that sometimes works in our favor (as in when we can get multiple offers to arrive at one time to bid up our pay).
The only reason it's as equal as it is is due to demand for hiring. Most other industries you take what you can get. Let's enjoy it while it lasts. Given the proliferation of "learn to code", outsourcing, insourcing, and other attempts to widen the number of qualified developers, I'm not sure how long this gravy train will continue to last.
Hopefully long enough for me to retire.
This is the only statement in your comment I take issue with. The company has access to all kinds of local, regional, and national salary data, as well as a holistic idea of the kind of candidates they're getting. If it's a large company, they have people whose only job is negotiation (especially around salary).
It's a decidedly unequal negotiation, that sometimes works in our favor (as in when we can get multiple offers to arrive at one time to bid up our pay).
The only reason it's as equal as it is is due to demand for hiring. Most other industries you take what you can get. Let's enjoy it while it lasts. Given the proliferation of "learn to code", outsourcing, insourcing, and other attempts to widen the number of qualified developers, I'm not sure how long this gravy train will continue to last.
Hopefully long enough for me to retire.
> The candidate has been preparing for weeks for an assessment that has nothing to do with their actual job, and is being assigned multiple take-home challenges that take 4-8 hours of their time, etc.
Take homes are usually pretty fun, I don't mind building yet another carwash react-express-postgres for someone. Leetcode is a whole different story. My ability to solve DP and graph questions deteriorates if I don't practice it constantly! Truly the biggest waste of time is being expected to be a solid leetcoder
Take homes are usually pretty fun, I don't mind building yet another carwash react-express-postgres for someone. Leetcode is a whole different story. My ability to solve DP and graph questions deteriorates if I don't practice it constantly! Truly the biggest waste of time is being expected to be a solid leetcoder
Especially for a small company, the biggest reason for an exploding offer is there might be a second-best candidate in the wings. The longer it takes the first candidate to make up their mind, the longer the company has to hold off the second candidate.
A fair wrinkle; I want there to be some way for all sides involved to have a fair and equitable process.
As I see it there are three stages of truth that might exist. I am not a lawyer, what's a good way for the company to signal during these contexts?
After a candidate passed the final interview:
# other interviews still ongoing
# others passed too
# all parties waiting
As a pre-requisite, an active communication feedback loop is a base requirement, even for rejected resumes at the filter stage.
As I see it there are three stages of truth that might exist. I am not a lawyer, what's a good way for the company to signal during these contexts?
After a candidate passed the final interview:
# other interviews still ongoing
# others passed too
# all parties waiting
As a pre-requisite, an active communication feedback loop is a base requirement, even for rejected resumes at the filter stage.
So, this is cynical but I actually look for some of these red flags specifically. For me they are not red flags. For me they are green flags.
Not enough clarity about your role - Consistent lack of interest or low morale from interviewers - Perfect , the less enthusiasm the better. Your interviewers aren’t prepared for the interview - Oh yeah, love those ones. Lack of a clear direction on where the company is headed - One of the best flags for me.
The reason I go for these companies is because I get to slack off and no one does anything about it. Especially now with wfh being the norm.
This strategy worked for me for close to 4 years. The last job I put actual effort in was around 2017. There are weeks on end where I just go to the morning standup, say I am working on it and for the rest of the day I play computer games or watch shows or go out dates. Sometimes, I just move jira tickets through the columns without even looking at them. No one checks, no one measures, no one seems to care.
If you want to grow in terms of skills, yeah, those are red flags to avoid. If you want to chill and bill, go for those sorts of companies. Big corporate, preferably non tech, preferably somewhere with a big churn rate so you can have the excuse of the original author no being there anymore.
Not enough clarity about your role - Consistent lack of interest or low morale from interviewers - Perfect , the less enthusiasm the better. Your interviewers aren’t prepared for the interview - Oh yeah, love those ones. Lack of a clear direction on where the company is headed - One of the best flags for me.
The reason I go for these companies is because I get to slack off and no one does anything about it. Especially now with wfh being the norm.
This strategy worked for me for close to 4 years. The last job I put actual effort in was around 2017. There are weeks on end where I just go to the morning standup, say I am working on it and for the rest of the day I play computer games or watch shows or go out dates. Sometimes, I just move jira tickets through the columns without even looking at them. No one checks, no one measures, no one seems to care.
If you want to grow in terms of skills, yeah, those are red flags to avoid. If you want to chill and bill, go for those sorts of companies. Big corporate, preferably non tech, preferably somewhere with a big churn rate so you can have the excuse of the original author no being there anymore.
Haha. I'll upvote you, because I want to see others' responses.
Interesting read but I (and I think many others) would be more interested in reading about how one manages to land 60 interviews, at all, in the current job market. You must have either a stellar resume, incredible experience, access to a huge network, or a combination of the above.
I had about 15 interviews all within a span of two weeks; I applied for those jobs the week before and I was fairly selective based on what I'm interested in doing and the kind of company I'm looking for. I don't have an incredible resume and I've never worked for any important company that you've heard of, I live in flyover country.
“The current job market” - tech stocks and revenue is exploding, is the job market difficult currently?
My understanding from younger colleagues is that entry-level positions are much more competitive than they were when I was leaving college and entering the tech market 10 or 12 years ago. At that time, my experience was that if you knew Linux (at all) or Windows/Mac administration - and were otherwise a good interviewee - you essentially had your choice of jobs.
People entering the market now talk about it like it's a complete wasteland. Apparently entry-level 'learn-on-the-job' tech work is extremely competitive and difficult to access for new graduates these days. If you're already 'in' and have a network and experience it's still largely like the glory days, but getting to that level is supposedly much more difficult now.
(To be fair to any younger people reading this, my entry-level tech job was at $28k/yr and I worked restaurants and bars until I was able to move on, so it's not like I got a degree and someone threw $150k at me to intern. It took a lot of work, even in the glory days)
People entering the market now talk about it like it's a complete wasteland. Apparently entry-level 'learn-on-the-job' tech work is extremely competitive and difficult to access for new graduates these days. If you're already 'in' and have a network and experience it's still largely like the glory days, but getting to that level is supposedly much more difficult now.
(To be fair to any younger people reading this, my entry-level tech job was at $28k/yr and I worked restaurants and bars until I was able to move on, so it's not like I got a degree and someone threw $150k at me to intern. It took a lot of work, even in the glory days)
There are many people entering the industry that can already demonstrate their skills well, and interview in a way that shows that even if they are technically entry-level, they likely won't stay there for very long.
This probably contributes to a very competitive situation for traditional entry-level "actually I need to learn this job once I get there" candidates.
This probably contributes to a very competitive situation for traditional entry-level "actually I need to learn this job once I get there" candidates.
From say, December 1995(An arbitrary date) to now, in every single month,you could find posts/emails/comments all over the internet claiming that in that month/year:
- The economy was in a slump and was going to get worse
- The job market was in its way situation ever
- All the good ideas had been taken, no hanging fruits anymore
- It was a bad time to study CS/law/medicine/engineering/math/physics
- The good times were over
- More and more people were "leaving the field"
- The economy was in a slump and was going to get worse
- The job market was in its way situation ever
- All the good ideas had been taken, no hanging fruits anymore
- It was a bad time to study CS/law/medicine/engineering/math/physics
- The good times were over
- More and more people were "leaving the field"
I've anecdotally heard from former colleagues that it's gotten tougher to find entry-level or mid-level positions, not sure how broadly that applies, though.
I will add my anecdote to the pile. It seems like there are a good number of positions out there, but it also seems like most of them are asking for senior level folks. Then, the ones I interview stall out because I either have too much experience, or not enough experience - I'm square in the middle ground where it seems nothing is quite right for me.
I identify with this. I'm ready to move on to the next step but there doesn't seem to be a position that fits my experience level. "Senior" seems like a relative distinction based on the company. I'm ready to land at a place that takes engineering practices more seriously but those companies don't think I have enough experience with those practices - for instance, I've never worked at a company that even cares about unit testing, now I need to be very experienced at it. I know how to do unit testing of course but it's not my sharpest skill for obvious reasons. I'm focusing on these weaker skills but it's definitely a challenge.
Same experience. Low level warm-body work is plentiful, but pays poorly and doesn't give good experience. Senior level work is in extremely high demand, but employers aren't willing to bring on engineers who only have experience with the latter. I've started shopping around for (and have had limited success with) 100-500 headcount companies who are willing to hire seniors on the greener side.
Only because entry level now includes folks who did a coding bootcamp or a couple of Coursera courses. Every college CS graduate I have known was juggling multiple full-time offers months before graduation.
Yeah it's super competitive for entry level jobs. I live in a city with a lot of tech workers and it's not uncommon for entry level development jobs to have hundreds of applicants within a day or so.
I suck at actual technical interviews due to anxiety, but I score exceptionally well with take home tests so thankfully I was able to land a job.
I suck at actual technical interviews due to anxiety, but I score exceptionally well with take home tests so thankfully I was able to land a job.
This is sort of evergreen though.
It's like "last year at Burning Man was the last good year."
It's like "last year at Burning Man was the last good year."
I got an offer from a place (hot startup)that I wasn’t really interested in.
Had a call to talk about it, see if I might be into. Oh can you talk to so and so, hey can we do a coding exercises really quick, hey can you chat with founder really quick.
3 days from hearing about company, I had an offer.
Then was being pestered about background check.
Wait, how did I get to this point? I wasn’t even really interested.
Few days later offer was withdrawn since I hadn’t completed paperwork.
Overall I’m glad I didn’t accept, they clearly had a very inflated opinion of themselves and how eager everyone would be to join.
3 days from hearing about company, I had an offer.
Then was being pestered about background check.
Wait, how did I get to this point? I wasn’t even really interested.
Few days later offer was withdrawn since I hadn’t completed paperwork.
Overall I’m glad I didn’t accept, they clearly had a very inflated opinion of themselves and how eager everyone would be to join.
In a tepid defense of the anonymous company… I would probably also interpret someone in the situation doing a coding exercise as a sign they are interested in a position.
Fair point.
I liken it to going to the bar and waking up in Vegas with a ring on your finger and a stranger in your bed.
It’s probably your fault, but it’s still a huge WTF just happened moment
It’s probably your fault, but it’s still a huge WTF just happened moment
> Few days later offer was withdrawn since I hadn’t completed paperwork.
Saw the not-filling paperwork/red tape in a timely manner used as a signal first-hand to screen out a perfectly-acceptable (technical-wise) candidate. Combined with a perceived lack of enthusiasm in personality for the role (which I could easily put down to a manager who has a specific idea in mind of "enthusiasm", and doesn't mesh well with a wider variance of personality types), it was a one-two punch the candidate could not recover from, and lost out to a slightly more junior tech.
Saw the not-filling paperwork/red tape in a timely manner used as a signal first-hand to screen out a perfectly-acceptable (technical-wise) candidate. Combined with a perceived lack of enthusiasm in personality for the role (which I could easily put down to a manager who has a specific idea in mind of "enthusiasm", and doesn't mesh well with a wider variance of personality types), it was a one-two punch the candidate could not recover from, and lost out to a slightly more junior tech.
I suppose my comment lacked a bit of nuance, as I understand the author may be in a different sector and certainly different geographic location.
Where I live (and the areas I am able/willing to transfer to), the job market has proven quite difficult. But, it could also be that my resume isn't to par, or a lack of effective networking, or both. That's why I'd be interested in seeing the perspective from someone who is obviously having success landing interviews.
Where I live (and the areas I am able/willing to transfer to), the job market has proven quite difficult. But, it could also be that my resume isn't to par, or a lack of effective networking, or both. That's why I'd be interested in seeing the perspective from someone who is obviously having success landing interviews.
[deleted]
Apply the Lindy rule[0]:
To get a job at a startup, have an app portfolio.
To get a job at a Big N, go to an elite university, another Big N, or grind Leetcode for months.
To get a job at a corporation, grind Leetcode and have recruiters spam your resume.
Different jobs require different applicants. A balanced, general approach, would be to do 1 Leetcode problem and send 1 application per day. It'd be hard to still be underemployed after doing that for any while.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindy_effect
To get a job at a startup, have an app portfolio.
To get a job at a Big N, go to an elite university, another Big N, or grind Leetcode for months.
To get a job at a corporation, grind Leetcode and have recruiters spam your resume.
Different jobs require different applicants. A balanced, general approach, would be to do 1 Leetcode problem and send 1 application per day. It'd be hard to still be underemployed after doing that for any while.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindy_effect
How are any of those recommendations related to the Lindy Effect?
Show an ability to survive in the different constraints unique to each type of software engineering job
How is that related to the Lindy Effect? Just throwing in the word "survive" doesn't automatically mean the Lindy Effect is in play...
I would like to respond in equal manner:
Show an ability to survive in the different constraints unique to each type of software engineering job
Show an ability to survive in the different constraints unique to each type of software engineering job
I'd never heard of the Lindy effect before and it seems very interesting. As I understand it, it suggests "the longer a non-perishable thing is present, the longer it likely will be present."
Not trying to razz you here, but I don't quite follow how this is an application of it. Could you elaborate a bit?
(edit: rats, I took too long to try to word this request tactfully)
Not trying to razz you here, but I don't quite follow how this is an application of it. Could you elaborate a bit?
(edit: rats, I took too long to try to word this request tactfully)
> and have recruiters spam your resume
What does this mean? Do you mean the applicant to spam recruiters with their resume? Or use Leetcode directly for hiring, because corpos will hire through Leetcode?
What does this mean? Do you mean the applicant to spam recruiters with their resume? Or use Leetcode directly for hiring, because corpos will hire through Leetcode?
Get some buzz in recruiting circles, and have them do the hardwork of getting your name out
He never says how many actual positions he interviewed for, or at how many companies for that matter. From the article it sounds like he was counting initial phone-screens as well.
If he had applied to 20 separate job postings they could have included a technical phone-screen, a "take-home" test, and a technical interview. Still a banana's amount of engagement for someone to receive in just 30-days though.
That being said and looking at the writer's LinkedIn profile he does appear to have a stellar resume, solid experience, and a large network.
If he had applied to 20 separate job postings they could have included a technical phone-screen, a "take-home" test, and a technical interview. Still a banana's amount of engagement for someone to receive in just 30-days though.
That being said and looking at the writer's LinkedIn profile he does appear to have a stellar resume, solid experience, and a large network.
I have 1 year of experience (not at a FAANG) and I get 3 recruiters a week through LinkedIn. And beyond a casual resume screening, they are direct to interview.
Where are you? The market is roaring here in Canada.
Where are you? The market is roaring here in Canada.
> Consistent lack of interest or low morale from interviewers
This one in particular pisses me off, especially if it’s late in the interviewing cycle. I interviewed with a certain YC startup recently and it was a long form programming exercise with two observers watching me work without really interacting much, where one of them was not even paying attention at all for their time (I know because they told me they were “rushing to get code out right now haha”). Come on, seriously? They rejected me because I didn’t do a good enough job I guess, or was deemed a poor culture fit idk, hope they found the “rockstar” they were after!
This one in particular pisses me off, especially if it’s late in the interviewing cycle. I interviewed with a certain YC startup recently and it was a long form programming exercise with two observers watching me work without really interacting much, where one of them was not even paying attention at all for their time (I know because they told me they were “rushing to get code out right now haha”). Come on, seriously? They rejected me because I didn’t do a good enough job I guess, or was deemed a poor culture fit idk, hope they found the “rockstar” they were after!
You should have pulled your phone out part way through the interview exercise and pretended to remote in to your Single Dev Start-up Environment and pretended to hot fix a bug or deploy more resources...
I really should have just left the call and moved on, saving the remaining two hours of my life.
> Not enough clarity about your role
I experienced this one to the extreme. Not only would the recruiter not tell me what the scope of the job was, neither would the interviewing engineers nor the hiring manager. I went to the on-site interview with the promise that I would be working on "world-changing technology". The location of the interview was a nondescript building in the Bay area with an off-limits engineering pen I wasn't allowed to see. They kept me in a 10x10 cubicle with a white board and small table for 6+ hours during which a parade of engineers came through to ask me puzzle questions. None of the interviewers could answer simple questions like "What do you do?" or "What am I going to do?"
Seriously, how does anyone accept a job without knowing what the job is? I guess if you're a big enough corporation you can get away with that kind of thing.
I experienced this one to the extreme. Not only would the recruiter not tell me what the scope of the job was, neither would the interviewing engineers nor the hiring manager. I went to the on-site interview with the promise that I would be working on "world-changing technology". The location of the interview was a nondescript building in the Bay area with an off-limits engineering pen I wasn't allowed to see. They kept me in a 10x10 cubicle with a white board and small table for 6+ hours during which a parade of engineers came through to ask me puzzle questions. None of the interviewers could answer simple questions like "What do you do?" or "What am I going to do?"
Seriously, how does anyone accept a job without knowing what the job is? I guess if you're a big enough corporation you can get away with that kind of thing.
> Seriously, how does anyone accept a job without knowing what the job is?
Well... I have had the opposite experience with the same effect too. The recruiters and team members had told me exactly what I will do, only to come in and discover they had exactly 0 idea what I will do, and that it's all different.
That was extremely disappointing (and moderately damaging).
Well... I have had the opposite experience with the same effect too. The recruiters and team members had told me exactly what I will do, only to come in and discover they had exactly 0 idea what I will do, and that it's all different.
That was extremely disappointing (and moderately damaging).
> They kept me in a 10x10 cubicle with a white board and small table for 6+ hours during which a parade of engineers came through to ask me puzzle questions.
Do you ever wonder whether it was all some kind of psychological experiment? That there really was no job. And the test was to see how long you'd sit there doing puzzles?
> None of the interviewers could answer simple questions like "What do you do?" or "What am I going to do?"
Only the control group was given that information. :P
Do you ever wonder whether it was all some kind of psychological experiment? That there really was no job. And the test was to see how long you'd sit there doing puzzles?
> None of the interviewers could answer simple questions like "What do you do?" or "What am I going to do?"
Only the control group was given that information. :P
You didn't ask if this as a TS Clearance Job ?
That is very common in the world of government contracts. The just want breathing bodies.
> Undue pressure to accept an offer letter
These are called "exploding offers". It's horrendously shady.
edit: I once got one with a limit of one hour before expiration. I was completely naive and took the position anyways. What a complete nightmare.
These are called "exploding offers". It's horrendously shady.
edit: I once got one with a limit of one hour before expiration. I was completely naive and took the position anyways. What a complete nightmare.
One piece of advice I saw recently - if you are interviewing, FAANG companies supposedly have a longer offer acceptance window. Smaller startups often have a smaller window. Also FAANG companies and larger companies and organization usually have a longer interview process. So the advice was to interview at the larger companies first, and then at the smaller startups who can turn on a dime quickly. It makes a lot of sense, but I never thought about it until recently.
That window is normally complete bs and I’ve always been able to extend it by a few weeks. No need to be a dick about it, just ask and if they are actually serious they’ll wait
I'm a little unclear how you could possibly get that many interviews in such a short time unless you're a famous "rockstar" coder. I'm not familiar with the blog author, is he a very well known person?
My experience is similar to the author's, and I live in a not so well off area of Europe. I'd expect to receive dozens of offers per month if I lived in the US.
Most recruiters are just chasing quantitative metrics and don't really care about candidates being a good fit. If you have certain keywords in your resume, you are going to get bombarded with offers. One of the few negative aspects of the rise of remote working is that it has exacerbated this.
Most recruiters are just chasing quantitative metrics and don't really care about candidates being a good fit. If you have certain keywords in your resume, you are going to get bombarded with offers. One of the few negative aspects of the rise of remote working is that it has exacerbated this.
You mean dozens of recruiter invites to chat right? Getting offers takes much more than just adding keywords to your CV
Offers as in contract and project details after one or two interviews, with no take home tests or phone screen interviews required. You basically have to agree and sign a couple of documents at that point. Lately, tech recruiters come across as desperate more often than not.
Once you pass 3-4 years of experience, it is not difficult to get at least a recruiter interview and phone screen in the US for a standard software engineer role. And that's with YOU applying — people get messaged by recruiters on LinkedIn all the time.
Oh, wait, are we including phone interviews in this? That changes it. I guess if this is all remote interviewing then that would make sense.
I have no idea what this person's resume looks like, but I believe there are a lot of jobs out there for people with certain skillsets right now, _especially_ given the massive shift to remote work. It's likely impossible to find & attend 60 interviews in a month _locally_, but when they're all remote it seems challenging but not impossible.
There's definitely a mindset thing to this that I need to work on, but my last experience going through the interview process was so draining that I didn't recover for several months.
It was my first time interviewing for "senior" roles — I did 5 on-sites (maybe 8 screens, starting from 15 phone calls?) while working full-time. I'm naturally pretty high-stress before interviews, and I felt like I needed to constantly be preparing, so it seemed like 3 months of a nightmarish grind.
Any advice from experienced interviewers for the next time around?
It was my first time interviewing for "senior" roles — I did 5 on-sites (maybe 8 screens, starting from 15 phone calls?) while working full-time. I'm naturally pretty high-stress before interviews, and I felt like I needed to constantly be preparing, so it seemed like 3 months of a nightmarish grind.
Any advice from experienced interviewers for the next time around?
>Any advice from experienced interviewers for the next time around?
I'm not an expert, but during the interviews of my last couple roles I hammered home better how I thought my skills would be useful to the company, and used phrases at the end of conversations such as "if you hire me, you won't regret it." I've also stripped down my LinkedIn profile to simple words describing what I do rather than a book-style narrative I had before.
Previously, I guess I'd assumed my resume and talents spoke for themselves when I'm more comfortable with my strengths, like simplicity. With this comes the confidence to not give a damn if I don't get a role, which usually helps my anxiety.
I'm not an expert, but during the interviews of my last couple roles I hammered home better how I thought my skills would be useful to the company, and used phrases at the end of conversations such as "if you hire me, you won't regret it." I've also stripped down my LinkedIn profile to simple words describing what I do rather than a book-style narrative I had before.
Previously, I guess I'd assumed my resume and talents spoke for themselves when I'm more comfortable with my strengths, like simplicity. With this comes the confidence to not give a damn if I don't get a role, which usually helps my anxiety.
I have never found interview process to be reflective of the company.
> Lack of a clear direction on where the company is headed
Unless you're joining as an exec or a high level architect position, you are just a mere rank and file pleb in the company. At that point, its important to know if your manager has enough social capital to get you the right opportunities to grow, rather than looking for companies "vision" and all the buzz words they throw at you.
> Lack of a clear direction on where the company is headed
Unless you're joining as an exec or a high level architect position, you are just a mere rank and file pleb in the company. At that point, its important to know if your manager has enough social capital to get you the right opportunities to grow, rather than looking for companies "vision" and all the buzz words they throw at you.
> 1. Your interviewer is only open to solving the problem ONE way
This may have also been the interviewer wanting to guage how the candidate would react to being asked to do a task in another method which was dictated vs. their preferred method.
A lot of development is a team sport, and quite a bit of it is subjective and opinionated - you're not always going to get to do it your way all the time.
I don't actually see this one as a red-flag right awya.
This may have also been the interviewer wanting to guage how the candidate would react to being asked to do a task in another method which was dictated vs. their preferred method.
A lot of development is a team sport, and quite a bit of it is subjective and opinionated - you're not always going to get to do it your way all the time.
I don't actually see this one as a red-flag right awya.
If you say it upfront, that's fine. If you say it once I solved the problem it's not.
I wonder - if you got an unfair[1] exploding offer, why not just accept it and keep shopping quietly?
[1] A small company may have only one spot open and another candidate lined up, so that's fair enough. But larger companies likely have more than one position open so they are just bossing you around. Nothing fair about that, and you don't have to make it easy for them.
[1] A small company may have only one spot open and another candidate lined up, so that's fair enough. But larger companies likely have more than one position open so they are just bossing you around. Nothing fair about that, and you don't have to make it easy for them.
Because then you can't negotiate. Imagine you like Company A, and they've given you an exploding offer of $x, but suspect you will receive an alternative of $x+10 in a few days from Company B.
If you accept the offer from A then you've limited your options. You either accept less than you're worth or lose your opportunity to work for them.
If you accept the offer from A then you've limited your options. You either accept less than you're worth or lose your opportunity to work for them.
> Because then you can't negotiate.
Why not? Maybe your position is not as strong as having another actual offer, but that doesn't mean you cannot negotiate at all. In any case it's hard to have all your offers all at the same time, but you could still have an offer from Company C before Company A (if you knew you'd be interested in A even before the application, you probably want to practice with another company), giving you some reference.
Why not? Maybe your position is not as strong as having another actual offer, but that doesn't mean you cannot negotiate at all. In any case it's hard to have all your offers all at the same time, but you could still have an offer from Company C before Company A (if you knew you'd be interested in A even before the application, you probably want to practice with another company), giving you some reference.
Example 1 was interesting. Who was it that was inflexible and may be difficult to work with? The interviewer that wanted to ask about another specific solution or the person who was interviewed who was not interested in another solution?
This is a dupe of https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24482119
Hope, I won't miss when you make a blog article about the great experiences and green flags.
These are all excellent
The redflag for me is 60 interviews in 30 days. smh
Have had good and bad interviews. The good ones are where the team is friendly and polite, and ask reasonable questions (if you don't get them right, then it's objectively on you due to lack of preparation or knowledge, no harm done).
I had one bad one where the CTO was a straight-up ass. Very critical attitude, and didn't hesitate to disparage the architectural techniques that I professed aptitude in. To his partial credit, he warmed to me as the interview went on, but it was quite unprofessional and gave off a sense of superiority.
I had one bad one where the CTO was a straight-up ass. Very critical attitude, and didn't hesitate to disparage the architectural techniques that I professed aptitude in. To his partial credit, he warmed to me as the interview went on, but it was quite unprofessional and gave off a sense of superiority.
If someone is doing 60 technical interviews in 30 days:
1. When I'm hiring, I wish the resume sites have an indicator when a person is interviewing excessively or indiscriminately, so that my company doesn't waste our time.
2. In the rare situation that I've been interested in working at a particular company, I wish I knew better ways for my interest to stand out from the "shotgun approach" applicants.
I did see one interesting approach by a company that tackles both scenarios: they have a unique and hefty job-application packet requirement, before you even know whether they're interested at all, nor what positions are available. The packet looked like it would take multiple days of interpretation, focused effort, and soul-baring to put together. I suspect, when the company skims the packet from someone who took the hit to put it together and submit it -- besides what value they get from qualitative interpretation of the content of the application -- they can also pretty easily detect many half-hearted efforts by people doing things like the article author's "109+" applications (if those people apply at all). A downside of this particular proof-of-work approach is that the required upfront effort on a cold application for a nebulous opportunity probably is filtering out some people the company would otherwise like to work with.
1. When I'm hiring, I wish the resume sites have an indicator when a person is interviewing excessively or indiscriminately, so that my company doesn't waste our time.
2. In the rare situation that I've been interested in working at a particular company, I wish I knew better ways for my interest to stand out from the "shotgun approach" applicants.
I did see one interesting approach by a company that tackles both scenarios: they have a unique and hefty job-application packet requirement, before you even know whether they're interested at all, nor what positions are available. The packet looked like it would take multiple days of interpretation, focused effort, and soul-baring to put together. I suspect, when the company skims the packet from someone who took the hit to put it together and submit it -- besides what value they get from qualitative interpretation of the content of the application -- they can also pretty easily detect many half-hearted efforts by people doing things like the article author's "109+" applications (if those people apply at all). A downside of this particular proof-of-work approach is that the required upfront effort on a cold application for a nebulous opportunity probably is filtering out some people the company would otherwise like to work with.
Yeah I think your last sentence nails the reverse issue here: The expectation from companies to put in excessive amounts of work which from all candidates when most all of them will get no return on that effort (other than Experience™).
My hope is that most of us are somewhere in the middle: Neither excessively applying to 60+ companies, nor being asked to do several days' worth of labor for a limited opportunity.
My hope is that most of us are somewhere in the middle: Neither excessively applying to 60+ companies, nor being asked to do several days' worth of labor for a limited opportunity.
I'm not complaining about being downvoted to negative after an initial jump up, but I'm curious why, and the comments don't say.
Was it the criticism of doing 60 interviews in 30 days, because some people think that's a good idea, or want to do that?
Was it because the wish for an indicator when a person is "interviewing excessively or indiscriminately" would be a privacy invasion, or more shift of the balance of power towards employers?
Was it the criticism of doing 60 interviews in 30 days, because some people think that's a good idea, or want to do that?
Was it because the wish for an indicator when a person is "interviewing excessively or indiscriminately" would be a privacy invasion, or more shift of the balance of power towards employers?
As an interviewee I wish the resume sites had an indicator when a company is interviewing excessively or indiscriminately so I don’t waste my time.
The company needs to have a pretty good brand to be able to hire at all with this strategy. If you're NONAME INC., I don't know what role you're hiring for, and I don't know how much you pay, why would I even spend 20min to apply?
If you have a good brand, good benefits etc. maybe you can afford this. But at that stage, this strategy probably doesn't scale anymore (still not enough applicants) and you just do leetcode interviews instead.
If you have a good brand, good benefits etc. maybe you can afford this. But at that stage, this strategy probably doesn't scale anymore (still not enough applicants) and you just do leetcode interviews instead.
#4 reflected my experience in Healthcare interviewing to a T.
Biggest Healthcare concern in XX states? Hiring the _13th_ person to the security team?
This is at least the third time this thing has been posted to hacker news.
Previous dupes:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24482119
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24017555
Previous dupes:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24482119
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24017555
The second link is a different article on the same blog.
HN never gets tired of the interview debate. I've seen the exact same set of comments for years now.
Funny how doing an Internet search engine search for the topic or any of the red flags yields many articles from different domains which are all basically the same article. I bet we will see this same post again in the future.
My biggest annoyance is late interviewers who then try to rush you through a question. I’ve had multiple interviews in the past where they are around 10 min late when you’ve taken time from your day and they barely acknowledge it, then clearly rush for time. I guarantee they also write down in many cases that they didn’t get enough data points, not noting that a big part of that is their own time management problem (not to mention many of these places won’t get back to you for a month+, but that’s a different issue)
I've been in hiring committee debriefs where "I was missing a few data points on X, but this is offset by the fact that the interview started Y minutes late, so we had less time than anticipated" explicitly called out in the written feedback.
I've seen it occasionally as well, but I've also seen many cases where I had to probe folks interviewing (when i was the hiring manager) if they gave the candidate time to answer the question and gather data when it looked like they didn't. The issue too is that even when called out, the candidate doesn't get a plus for that area, instead it may be omitted where it could have been a strength to help balance areas where they were lacking.
This is tricky. On one hand, as an interviewer you want to leave room for interviewees to express themselves as fully as possible. On the other hand, the purpose of the interview is for both parties to gain as much information as possible about whether both want to work together - and this is often not optimized by having each question point go its full length, but rather by getting just a bit of information on each topic and then moving to the next.
I agree, however if the interviewer is late to the interview, they have started on the wrong foot for planning and getting the data they need
Good to see an article like this as so many people think an interview is a one-way process, it's two-way and you are interviewing them as much as they are interviewing you. SO many let the potential employer dominate the whole process, with the token - do you have any questions at the end. If you have an interview like that, it wasn't a good interview and you will either find out by not getting the job, or later on, doing the job and regretting it down the line.
> In both interviews, even though the interviewers shared some details about the company, there was a lot of vagueness and about the company’s direction and where the company was headed.
In addition to asking about company direction, I've found this list[0] extremely helpful in both as a hiring manager and as an interviewee.
[0] https://www.reddit.com/r/startups/comments/35mjw8/what_i_ask...
In addition to asking about company direction, I've found this list[0] extremely helpful in both as a hiring manager and as an interviewee.
[0] https://www.reddit.com/r/startups/comments/35mjw8/what_i_ask...
I once got stood up for a round of interviews — I showed up, waited, emailed them multiple times to let them know I was there, and then 30 minutes later they wrote to me to ask if I could come in another day (rather than meeting me at the front desk where I was sitting). At the time I was just annoyed that they had wasted my time, but in retrospect, the real red flag there was that no one took responsibility — “there was a scheduling conflict” was as much as I got. I went to the next interview but when I got a weird feeling about it, I withdrew from the process.
You can learn a lot about an org if you just watch how they treat you and each other. That’s the lesson I took from this article as well.
You can learn a lot about an org if you just watch how they treat you and each other. That’s the lesson I took from this article as well.
I had a second round with the CEO of a small startup on zoom. 5 times in a 45 minute interview he said "Sorry hold that thought, just responding to a customer email real quick"
It was tempting to tell him that we should just wrap this up if he had more important things to do.
It was tempting to tell him that we should just wrap this up if he had more important things to do.
I would call this an ambiguous signal, a lot of CEOs are just like this; but you might know about yourself that this style wouldn’t work for you in a manager. It would not work for me.
if he was personally trying to guarantee quick response times to customers, then that sounds like his priorities are right.
Especially at a "small startup", this is a good sign. Makes me think there was more work than employees which is why the CEO was interviewing and doing customer support.
Especially at a "small startup", this is a good sign. Makes me think there was more work than employees which is why the CEO was interviewing and doing customer support.
Don't make the appointment if you can't dedicate your attention. If the CEO is too busy, they shouldn't be a part of the interview.
If something comes up, find a new host or give the candidate a mid-session break.
If something comes up, find a new host or give the candidate a mid-session break.
> Don't make the appointment if you can't dedicate your attention
maybe the CEO is swamped and needs to hire people so he can dedicate attention.
I'm assuming the best, but if my assumptions are true, the CEO should have said upfront that they are growing fast and he may need to personally help with support during the interview.
maybe the CEO is swamped and needs to hire people so he can dedicate attention.
I'm assuming the best, but if my assumptions are true, the CEO should have said upfront that they are growing fast and he may need to personally help with support during the interview.
I had forgotten about this but my first professional job something like this happened with one of my interviewers a few time--not customers but fires of various types. It was a pretty good job for a few years though.
Meh, it's disrespectful and rude.
I had a friend, haven't seen him in a while then met for a coffee and a chat. 10 times in 20 minutes he would pick up a call in the middle of the conversation and "hold that thought".
Made a huge effort not to tell him to go f himself at the end but that concluded our "friendship".
I had a friend, haven't seen him in a while then met for a coffee and a chat. 10 times in 20 minutes he would pick up a call in the middle of the conversation and "hold that thought".
Made a huge effort not to tell him to go f himself at the end but that concluded our "friendship".
If you had told him that you needed him to stop answering his phone, you might still be friends.
If you had told him
This is not a thing that anyone should need to be told
This is not a thing that anyone should need to be told
Stuff does happen. I actually got stood up for my first in-person discussion with someone from my current company. But, in all fairness, it was informal, a call came up, and their admin didn't have my cell. (The scheduled meeting wasn't even in the office.)
I remember being in an interview, with a very respected figure/researcher in the local ML/AI scene - had seen some guest lectures/seminars he held at the local Uni., which were excellent.
He was glued to his phone for about 95% of the interview, completely focused on something else. It was quite the letdown.
But I understand that a lot of people really, really loathe doing interviews. Probably stipulated in their work contract that they need to attend to stuff like that.
He was glued to his phone for about 95% of the interview, completely focused on something else. It was quite the letdown.
But I understand that a lot of people really, really loathe doing interviews. Probably stipulated in their work contract that they need to attend to stuff like that.
I had an interview like that last year. It was the third interview that looped in the team lead. The team lead was answering slack messages the whole time and asked me to repeat my answer to questions a handful of times. He apologized and everything, but the bigger issue is you aren't going to remember a candidate for a job when you aren't paying attention so its clearly a waste of time for everyone.
Sometimes a person had someone they want to hire but due to institutional policy they have to open the position up to the public. So they have to sit through interviews with people they have no intention of hiring just so their colleague can get the job.
[deleted]
I've never found the interview process to be reflective of the company. I find the interview process to be a random hodgepodge across the entire industry because nobody knows what they are doing. Small/not-big-tech companies literally just have people that googled "how to do a programming interview for ________ language" and skimmed a youtube video, lifted some questions from some articles, and made you solve it in codepen.
Extrapolating that to the actual culture is totally a miss.