13 ms·

I've found that the best predictors of a good hire are indications of the following characteristics during the interview/vetting process: - adaptability -- can

I've found that the best predictors of a good hire are indications of the following characteristics during the interview/vetting process: - adaptability -- can this person deal with situations that are spontaneous and unplanned without losing his/her cool. - openness -- is this person instinctively scornful of new concepts/ideas or energized by the chance to be exposed to something potentially interesting. - resourcefulness -- has this person found ways to keep learning after college and has he/she continued to up his/her game. - desire to ship -- does this person have a deep desire to produce work that will be used by others. - desire to grow -- does this person have clear career growth goals. Ideally these are not tied to titles or bossing others around, which are negatives. - rationality -- can this person admit to being wrong and speak about it authentically... can I imagine this person admitting to being slightly wrong and even very wrong about something and handling it gracefully. - territoriality -- does this person seem territorial or speak about issues of proudly defending turf in previous positions? Doing so is a negative. - poker face -- does this person seem to be playing it close to the vest in the interview or otherwise have very low levels of openness? This is a big warning sign and an instant do not hire.

pbz 11y ago
Any tips on how to find out about (some of) these in a quick (phone) interview?
- grandalf 11y ago
  I usually ask "What are you interested in?" and just let them speak, then ask them to elaborate a few times. People who find this frustrating are usually low-openness, as are people who become noticeably indignant after being asked to share more. Also, I ask what are the most important things they are looking for in the team they will be joining. Some people are interviewing because they dislike their current job so this is a good clue about their morale and what kinds of situations can lead them to give up and start interviewing. By this point, after talking to someone for a few minutes I usually have a sense of whether they are easy to talk to or whether the conversation was draining for me and a notion of how smart I think they are. If both of those feel good I focus on selling the team and what it offers so they bring their A game to the in person interview.
  - ambicapter 11y ago
    Can you offer some advice to people who are low-openness and don't see why that's a problem?
    - smellf 11y ago
      The reason why it's a problem is because when a coworker is always in his or her own little bubble and you know nothing about them it is harder to get along with them and thus harder to work with them. And by the same token, if you like and get along with the people in your environment, then you'll be happier and thus more productive.
      - SonicSoul 11y ago
        I don't believe in this at all. Some of the most effective people I've worked with were people that quietly worked in their own space for 4 hrs before lunch and 4 hrs after lunch. Some of them socialized with coworkers after hours, some didn't. At least in engineering field I don't believe it is important to be that open with people unless maybe you're in sales and need that social vibe all day to keep in state. Engineers can be highly effective staying in their own space unless communication is required and omitting the usual everyday small talk BS that wastes 1-3 hours of your day
        smellf 11y ago
        Sure, those people who keep entirely to themselves may be highly effective programmers. But they will likely not be effective communicators, and unless they are their own manager and work on teams of one, they are going to be less effective overall than someone who can communicate.
        SonicSoul 11y ago
        ahh, I get it. It's the openness while interacting, not necessarily eagerness to initiate interaction. I agree with this.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
jayhuang 11y ago
Great points, though out of curiosity, could you expand on the last point? As someone who has always topped performance ratings, gotten along well with colleagues (many of my past co-workers are close friends now), and provided meaningful to significant contributions to all the projects I've worked on AND has a reputation for having a poker face, I'm a bit concerned that it would be as bad as an "instant do not hire"
- brown 11y ago
  Not the OP, but I would have used the word "caginess" or "excess self preservation". You don't want to hire a shark who's going to work against you.
  - grandalf 11y ago
    Exactly. I realize now that the term "poker face" came across as too literal, and what I was really trying to describe was exactly the sense of caginess or unwillingness to put one's self out there.
munificent 11y ago
> - rationality -- can this person admit to being wrong and speak about it authentically... can I imagine this person admitting to being slightly wrong and even very wrong about something and handling it gracefully. I think this is a super important characteristic for a great employee to have, but I don't know how reasonable it is to expect to see much of it in an interview. In an interview setting, the candidate is under a lot of pressure to come across as "perfect" in the sense that they want to appear to meet all of the expectations the interviewer has for them. Asking about mistakes they have made, or putting them in a position to make a mistake during the interview itself can just be really stressful. Candidates that think you want them to make no mistakes will feel they are doing poorly. Candidates that know you want them to be comfortable being wrong—whether or not they actually are—can easily game this. > - poker face -- does this person seem to be playing it close to the vest in the interview or otherwise have very low levels of openness? This is a big warning sign and an instant do not hire. One of the things I've heard from HR/recruiting folks is that it's not a good idea to use body language as a signal. There's a lot of cultural and personality variation around it. You can end up with an unfairly biased opinion simply because they come from a culture that is not very demonstrative, or they are introverted or otherwise have personality traits that lead them to not display a lot of emotion or energy. I agree with all of the characteristics you list here. It's a great snapshot of what I like in a good coworker. But, man, accurately detecting them in an interview seems super hard to me. But maybe I just don't have much confidence in my own interviewing skills.
- awinder 11y ago
  On the rationality point, I've definitely been one to talk openly when asked about times I've failed / would have done something differently. I've looked at it as a no-loss scenario: if I'm talking with a company and they can't accept that no one is perfect, then I'd rather not work for that company anyways. Interviewing in a sense is kinda like dating, one way to really screw things up is if you're both looking for different things. If you're both trying to get into a fling, then yeah I guess lie your pants off and have unreasonable expectations of each other. If you're looking for long-term match, just lay your cards on the table and if you match, you match.
goodplay 11y ago
I think mentioning these points upfront is a great way to give potential employees some idea about what kind of environment they should expect and whether they will be a good fit or not. To me, at least, having this kind of information would immensely help me narrow down my list of possible employers.
mikehollinger 11y ago
re: poker face - I would reword this to "communication style" - does this person communicate in a style that I (and my team) can understand? Being open may depend on cultural norms, more than a "poker face." It's definitely a warning sign that Bad Things might happen in the future.
- lfx 11y ago
  poker face - is super cultural thing, I work with several Asians, most of them (not all!) sits _with_ poker face whole day. It is kind of hard to read people and understand if they got it when I'm explaining something. They are not even nod or smile. I'm European and sometimes it is super frustrating to not receive any body lang feedback. But when we close office doors they starts to chat, nod, laugh and what not. On other hand there are two Japanese who acts like Europeans all the time - nods, talks, etc even though they left Japan ~2-3y ago. I thought initially that they already adapted to this Western style. I've talked with them all about this and they just said that they just do what they did in their countries.
  - patio11 11y ago
    Fun fact: There is a word in Japanese -- aizuchi -- for "meaningless nothings which you say during a conversation to let the other party know that you're actively engaged in the conversation." Sitting with a stone face during a meeting in Japan would be very not normative. Your counterparty would assume that either you're totally checked out, repulsed by what is on offer, or so ridiculously above their social standing that you didn't even have to go through the motions of pretending to care about what they had to say. Your periodic dispatch from Asia Is A Big Place; Consider The Possibility It Is Populated Mostly By Humans.
    - cableshaft 11y ago
      My experience with Japanese people (I used to work in a Japanese company and attended a lot of meetings in Japanese) listening to someone else in meetings is a lot of "Aaaa, sou sou sou sou. Sou desu. Wakarimashita. Hai. Wakarimashita. Mmmm. Mmm Mmm. Sou desu." I eventually did some of it myself. Seems like a lot of aizuchi to me :P
Arainach 11y ago
>- desire to grow -- does this person have clear career growth goals. Ideally these are not tied to titles or bossing others around, which are negatives. Can you give an example of what you WOULD like to see here? There's some selection bias among the kinds of developers who tend to hang out on online technical communities and learn new things, but what IS the right long term goal, and how is this different from "desire to ship"? Sure, I'd like to work on meaningful projects and have enough breadth and depth of knowledge to design and contribute in a meaningful way in them, but if we're being totally honest my career goals are absolutely "make enough money to pay the mortgage, go on the occasional vacation, and save for retirement". I'm not in this to be a rock star who works 100 hours a week for the chance to be a multimillionaire, and I'm not in this to achieve fame in the developer community. I'm in it to get a paycheck doing work that is intellectually stimulating while still having enough free time to do things OTHER than work, but it's long been obvious that you're not allowed to say that in a job interview, so what ARE you looking for people to say? To put it another way, in the title terms you don't want to discuss, I have no desire to be a principle architect or C*O. I'm perfectly content being a good-to-great senior-level engineer who's a solid team contributor if not in control of everything. I'm on board with your other qualifications - continual learning, adapting, and gaining exposure to new technologies is great - but is there a limit to career growth? Based simply on number of positions in existence, it's impossible for everyone in the field to keep growing and advancing indefinitely.
- grandalf 11y ago
  Well, I ideally like to see some interests that are on the edge of the candidate's current skill-set which indicate that he/she is aware that technology is changing and that we must all plan ahead a bit to remain relevant and employable in 5 years. Not trend-tracking, but deepening and broadening the skill-set.
  - tamana 11y ago
    Why do you care how good a candidate will be at getting a new job after yours?
SonicSoul 11y ago
these are all great traits, but how do you determine them in an interview? for example openness. Everyone will say they are open and interested to new ideas, maybe accept few odd cases. how do you test for rationality? do you wait to catch them on something and keep drilling until they admit defeat?
- grandalf 11y ago
  I've found that people who are open usually think of the interview as a way to learn new things and to determine whether it's a good fit. They will ask questions and seem to enjoy gathering knowledge. Rationality is more of a value than a litmus test. Those who value rationality will understand systems thinking and will tend not to focus highly on authority (either being authoritative or deferring to someone else's authority).
  - SonicSoul 11y ago
    thanks sounds like you've done your share of interviewing. It would be great to hear more about your experience if you ever want to write a more lengthy blog post on this subject. I still find it very hard to predict who will make for a great employee.. provided they do ok on technical side it's still more of an intuition thing rather than process.
    - grandalf 11y ago
      I should do that sometime. For some reason I'm much more inspired to write my ideas in a forum like HN than I am in a blog post or writeup.
elipsey 11y ago
>> - poker face -- does this person seem to be playing it close to the vest in the interview or otherwise have very low levels of openness? By nature I am pretty open, and not especially competitive. While my credentials are not great, I have been praised by certain mentors for other desirable attributes in this list: open mindedness, humility, pragmatism, adaptability, willingness to collaborate, and “growth mindset.” The problem with these attitudes is that they can work to your disadvantage around non-technical authority figures. For example, a little while ago I was invited to meeting with possible collaborator in another department. After being introduced, I asked few general questions about his project. He probed for clarification until I finally said something he found technically wanting, and then made a great show of grandstanding at my expense in front of the group, but didn't answer the question. My (non-developer) boss was very impressed with him, but other employees that had to work with this guy were not as impressed. I wasn't invited back, although maybe that was good thing. Obviously it's not good to seem evasive in interviews, but in general I have had to learn the hard way that not everyone at work wants to be my friend. How do others here deal with this sort problem? Edit: I guess I'm not sure how far I have to go in the direction of measured answers before it might seem evasive in an interview. Because of these experiences, I'm probably inclined to give more measured or carefully considered answers in general to people I don't know well. I'm not sure what degree of this sort of behavior will seem evasive. My last boss told me once that I was generally "very careful." Maybe that's a hint? So what I mean to ask is: how do others calibrate their degree of openess to a given situation, in an interview or otherwise?
- bovermyer 11y ago
  Not everyone wants to be your friend, but everyone SHOULD want to work together towards a common goal. The trick is in getting the two parties involved to see that common goal and why it's in their own best interests. It sounds like the person you're talking about was using the conversation not as a way to acquire help, but rather to demonstrate that he didn't need it, probably in an effort to boost his own status in his social group. You're better off not working with that type of person.
  - elipsey 11y ago
rntz 11y ago
A big long list of relevant but subjective traits is a perfect vector for bias to creep in. Take what you call "poker face", for example - how do you measure openness? By how well they make small talk? What if they're just nervous because of the interview; what if they experience social anxiety; or what if they're just an introvert, and don't tend to be open around new people? For a less trivial example, take "resourcefulness". To a large extent, resourcefulness is determined by access to resources. Continued learning after college takes more than curiosity: it takes a bunch of free time to burn on reading, hacking, debugging, etc. What if the interviewee has been spending their time outside of work raising a family instead?
- grandalf 11y ago
  I agree about the possibility of bias creeping in. On the other hand, humans are biased, so understanding how to hire for success within your own (or your organization's) biases is useful. Some people would want the opposite candidate to the one I described. Resourcefulness is more of a mindset. New parent? OK, what have you discovered about childrearing that you didn't anticipate? What will you do differently next time? What is your ideal work/life balance? These are all relevant things, and sometimes the young parent is a superb hire and may read very interesting books in anticipation of having more time to hack in a couple of years.
  - emcq 11y ago
    FYI asking people what they do outside work is often a big HR no-no because it can easily fall into illegal but accidental discriminatory questions that are unrelated to the job which can be unnecessary PR and legal risks for your company. I like the attributes you're probing but I'd keep it within the context of engineering and programming if that's what you're hiring for. That's part of the reason open source and github projects are such strong signals in hiring.
    - grandalf 11y ago
      True. I typically ask about technology related interests.
tracker1 11y ago
Regarding your last point... sometimes, it's a matter of being professional. You don't want to go on a diatribe about all that was wrong in a former position or company. It depends on context of course, but in the end, sometimes there are reasons not to be completely open. In my personal life, I try to live unfiltered. Not mean, and work more to filter on sensitive subjects, but I mean that let thoughts, even incomplete ones flow. Otherwise, I personally tend to stay in my head, and not let much of anything out. It's a balance. I can't speak for others, but would say that your interpretation on the last point may not always be the correct one.
- grandalf 11y ago
  I think this is a valid point. My characterization of openness in my initial comment was a bit narrow. I think the most important aspect is openness to new ideas and experiences, and willingness to put one's self out there a bit.
fweespee_ch 11y ago
> - poker face -- does this person seem to be playing it close to the vest in the interview or otherwise have very low levels of openness? This is a big warning sign and an instant do not hire. You do realize many people are just naturally hard to read right? I'm so hard to read people have made comments about how, if I was going to a wedding, they couldn't be sure if it was mine based on how neutral my delivery is. The only time I'm easy to read is when I'm visibly irritated and/or angry. This is also part of why people think I have a temper, they miss literally all the warning signs for weeks/months/years so to them it comes out of "nowhere" despite the fact I've verbally expressed unhappiness to varying degrees. However, the neutrality of the delivery causes them to assume I don't care that much [so they continue, repeatedly].
bjourne 11y ago
It's telling that in your list you never once mentioned "Actually possesses the technical skills required to do a good job."
- pklausler 11y ago
  Skills become obsolete. Aptitudes don't.
  - grandalf 11y ago
    Exactly.
- ionforce 11y ago
  I just had this discussion at work... I think that it is implicit in this context that a minimum amount of technical ability be met. Otherwise we'd just be hiring "nice people". Obviously we don't do that.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
_yosefk 11y ago
I think I can totally make that impression now. I totally couldn't when I was younger - and when I would have provided you much more value for the money (meaning, I'd work my ass off for peanuts.) I would have failed on numerous grounds: * desire to ship: more like "I don't care who uses my work, I just want a job" * desire to grow: more like "I don't know what people grow into, I just want a job" * rationality: I dunno, I might have tried to fake understanding something when I didn't out of fear * poker face: I dunno, probably I'd have "very low levels of openness" because fuck, I really really need a job and I'm super nervous In general, usually the guy who appears nice, sensible and calm is indeed a great hire, but they cost a fortune because they're actually quite rare. A very simple way to hire pretty great people cheaply is opening the doors for the hordes of somewhat-mentally-imbalanced people.
- grandalf 11y ago
  Those are good points. You're right I'm describing a fairly rare kind of hire, and a solid process must take into consideration the reality that not everyone is that strong or interviews that well, yet may have other highly valuable traits.
  - chipsy 11y ago
    Perhaps an appropriate measure for interviewing is to do some psychological profiling to spot where a candidate is imbalanced, and then incorporate into the remainder of questioning. As an interviewer, you're always going to be biasing towards your own strengths and downplaying weaknesses, and although there are personalities that pose more or less danger to others, there isn't a perfect personality overall.
kafkaesq 11y ago
Those are great qualities to filter for. Yet out in the rest of the world, come interview time, it's... "So, how would go about sorting a quadrillion integers?"
JohnTHaller 11y ago
In addition to these being great things to look for in a candidate, these are also great things to strive for as a coder. Adaptability - being able to look at a change in direction/target market/etc as an exciting challenge keeps you less stressed Openness - always learning keeps your brain's plasticity up, keeps you happier, and helps you be ready for whatever new concept/language/whatnot will be useful next Resourcefulness - being able to be a combination of self-sufficient and knowing where/how to acquire the resources/skills you need when they're needed helps keep the stress down Desire to Ship - if you haven't gotten the chance to deliver something to real users, do it. Somehow, anyhow you can. Whether at a 9-to-5 or doing open source stuff in your spare time. Seeing how the work you do can affect others, make their jobs easier (or even possible in the first place), make their lives better, etc is a game-changer if you haven't done it yet. And if you're working on something you don't care about shipping, you're probably working on the wrong thing/for the wrong company. Desire to Grow - Several of the above help with this and the whole "keep moving forward" thing. The more you learn, the more experience you have, the more you can build and ship useful/interesting/fun/cool things. Rationality - You can't grow, adapt, and gain new resources without screwing up. We all do it. Follow that with admitting it, analyzing it, and learning from it. Sometimes you learn the most about a situation like this, often about yourself and your own inner-workings. That gives you the knowledge to be able to start working on improving those inner-workings. Territoriality - Turf wars are always a mess. Whether at a company or in an open source project. So, figuring out ways to let things overlap and allowing different groups to help make each other better helps you in the long run. And it's always gratifying to take a win-lose and turn it into a straight win. Poker Face - Be honest with your interviewer and expect the same from them. Why would you want to keep things close to the vest and wind up in a company/team/situation that isn't the best fit for you and doesn't fully allow you to adapt, be open, grow, ship, etc? All the above will help with growing and enjoying tech. You'll still have to deal with interviews/companies like the one posted here, unfortunately. I'm learning that now as I'm exploring getting back into working for a company full time.
kpwagner 11y ago
I feel like the whole "poker face" thing has been my achilles heal. I AM guarded with a lot of my personal information; in my experience for good reason. So what do you do in your free time? FUCK YOU. If your answer isn't play softball and train for marathons, it's a way-ahead/way-behind scenario. Maybe you get lucky and interview with someone who has shared interests. > I really like movies. I watch a lot of modern movies just for entertainment, but I also watch a lot of classics, even boring ones, to try to fill out my knowledge. I would love to make a short film and get it accepted to a film festival. < Huh... which means: so you're, like, not very social? And you don't seem very serious about your career if you are trying make movies or whatever. Good luck getting into Sundance, whatever the fuck that is. I once, only once, made the horrendous mistake of telling two interviewers (they were doing the old gang-fuck) that I was passionate about Starcraft II (it was 2011 or something). I thought, what the hey, the truth will out. If I'm just open and genuine at least that will come across as a positive. They actually openly ridiculed me and subsequently told me that they weren't the kind of company that extended much free time or control over schedule to their junior employees, which I thought was especially interesting (frustrating) for two reasons: 1) Why the fuck are you asking me about my free time if I won't have any? 2) They just got through explaining how their company didn't have any hierarchy. So what the fuck is a "junior employee" in a company with no hierarchy? On non-personal subjects, saying "I don't know" has never worked as well as everyone claims. Oh, just say, "I don't know". That shows maturity and confidence. WTF? Whenever I said, "I don't know" in an interview, the interviewer kept pressing me for an answer until I produced some garbage that I'm sure sounded rather like BS, because it was.
- yxhuvud 11y ago
  If they openly admit they give no free time, then it wasn't a place for you. Meaning that it was a good thing dropping SC2 into the discussion.
  - kpwagner 11y ago
    Ultimately, I agree. It's complex though; every job I've ever had has left a sour taste in my mouth, yet I still need to eat and pay bills. And despite the difficulties I've encountered actually getting jobs (interviewing), my employers have always said I was doing great work.
aagha 11y ago
These are all great, but I think you're missing something much more basic: commute time. All of the above are great, but if someone's commute time to work (and home again) are intolerable, they will not last.
nullstring 11y ago
How do you test for these in an interview ?

pbz 11y ago

Any tips on how to find out about (some of) these in a quick (phone) interview?

grandalf 11y ago
I usually ask "What are you interested in?" and just let them speak, then ask them to elaborate a few times. People who find this frustrating are usually low-openness, as are people who become noticeably indignant after being asked to share more. Also, I ask what are the most important things they are looking for in the team they will be joining. Some people are interviewing because they dislike their current job so this is a good clue about their morale and what kinds of situations can lead them to give up and start interviewing. By this point, after talking to someone for a few minutes I usually have a sense of whether they are easy to talk to or whether the conversation was draining for me and a notion of how smart I think they are. If both of those feel good I focus on selling the team and what it offers so they bring their A game to the in person interview.
- ambicapter 11y ago
  Can you offer some advice to people who are low-openness and don't see why that's a problem?
  - smellf 11y ago
    The reason why it's a problem is because when a coworker is always in his or her own little bubble and you know nothing about them it is harder to get along with them and thus harder to work with them. And by the same token, if you like and get along with the people in your environment, then you'll be happier and thus more productive.
    - SonicSoul 11y ago
      I don't believe in this at all. Some of the most effective people I've worked with were people that quietly worked in their own space for 4 hrs before lunch and 4 hrs after lunch. Some of them socialized with coworkers after hours, some didn't. At least in engineering field I don't believe it is important to be that open with people unless maybe you're in sales and need that social vibe all day to keep in state. Engineers can be highly effective staying in their own space unless communication is required and omitting the usual everyday small talk BS that wastes 1-3 hours of your day
      - smellf 11y ago
        Sure, those people who keep entirely to themselves may be highly effective programmers. But they will likely not be effective communicators, and unless they are their own manager and work on teams of one, they are going to be less effective overall than someone who can communicate.
        SonicSoul 11y ago
        ahh, I get it. It's the openness while interacting, not necessarily eagerness to initiate interaction. I agree with this.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

jayhuang 11y ago

Great points, though out of curiosity, could you expand on the last point? As someone who has always topped performance ratings, gotten along well with colleagues (many of my past co-workers are close friends now), and provided meaningful to significant contributions to all the projects I've worked on AND has a reputation for having a poker face, I'm a bit concerned that it would be as bad as an "instant do not hire"

brown 11y ago
Not the OP, but I would have used the word "caginess" or "excess self preservation". You don't want to hire a shark who's going to work against you.
- grandalf 11y ago
  Exactly. I realize now that the term "poker face" came across as too literal, and what I was really trying to describe was exactly the sense of caginess or unwillingness to put one's self out there.

munificent 11y ago

> - rationality -- can this person admit to being wrong and speak about it authentically... can I imagine this person admitting to being slightly wrong and even very wrong about something and handling it gracefully. I think this is a super important characteristic for a great employee to have, but I don't know how reasonable it is to expect to see much of it in an interview. In an interview setting, the candidate is under a lot of pressure to come across as "perfect" in the sense that they want to appear to meet all of the expectations the interviewer has for them. Asking about mistakes they have made, or putting them in a position to make a mistake during the interview itself can just be really stressful. Candidates that think you want them to make no mistakes will feel they are doing poorly. Candidates that know you want them to be comfortable being wrong—whether or not they actually are—can easily game this. > - poker face -- does this person seem to be playing it close to the vest in the interview or otherwise have very low levels of openness? This is a big warning sign and an instant do not hire. One of the things I've heard from HR/recruiting folks is that it's not a good idea to use body language as a signal. There's a lot of cultural and personality variation around it. You can end up with an unfairly biased opinion simply because they come from a culture that is not very demonstrative, or they are introverted or otherwise have personality traits that lead them to not display a lot of emotion or energy. I agree with all of the characteristics you list here. It's a great snapshot of what I like in a good coworker. But, man, accurately detecting them in an interview seems super hard to me. But maybe I just don't have much confidence in my own interviewing skills.

awinder 11y ago
On the rationality point, I've definitely been one to talk openly when asked about times I've failed / would have done something differently. I've looked at it as a no-loss scenario: if I'm talking with a company and they can't accept that no one is perfect, then I'd rather not work for that company anyways. Interviewing in a sense is kinda like dating, one way to really screw things up is if you're both looking for different things. If you're both trying to get into a fling, then yeah I guess lie your pants off and have unreasonable expectations of each other. If you're looking for long-term match, just lay your cards on the table and if you match, you match.

goodplay 11y ago

I think mentioning these points upfront is a great way to give potential employees some idea about what kind of environment they should expect and whether they will be a good fit or not. To me, at least, having this kind of information would immensely help me narrow down my list of possible employers.

mikehollinger 11y ago

re: poker face - I would reword this to "communication style" - does this person communicate in a style that I (and my team) can understand? Being open may depend on cultural norms, more than a "poker face." It's definitely a warning sign that Bad Things might happen in the future.

lfx 11y ago
poker face - is super cultural thing, I work with several Asians, most of them (not all!) sits _with_ poker face whole day. It is kind of hard to read people and understand if they got it when I'm explaining something. They are not even nod or smile. I'm European and sometimes it is super frustrating to not receive any body lang feedback. But when we close office doors they starts to chat, nod, laugh and what not. On other hand there are two Japanese who acts like Europeans all the time - nods, talks, etc even though they left Japan ~2-3y ago. I thought initially that they already adapted to this Western style. I've talked with them all about this and they just said that they just do what they did in their countries.
- patio11 11y ago
  Fun fact: There is a word in Japanese -- aizuchi -- for "meaningless nothings which you say during a conversation to let the other party know that you're actively engaged in the conversation." Sitting with a stone face during a meeting in Japan would be very not normative. Your counterparty would assume that either you're totally checked out, repulsed by what is on offer, or so ridiculously above their social standing that you didn't even have to go through the motions of pretending to care about what they had to say. Your periodic dispatch from Asia Is A Big Place; Consider The Possibility It Is Populated Mostly By Humans.
  - cableshaft 11y ago
    My experience with Japanese people (I used to work in a Japanese company and attended a lot of meetings in Japanese) listening to someone else in meetings is a lot of "Aaaa, sou sou sou sou. Sou desu. Wakarimashita. Hai. Wakarimashita. Mmmm. Mmm Mmm. Sou desu." I eventually did some of it myself. Seems like a lot of aizuchi to me :P

Arainach 11y ago

>- desire to grow -- does this person have clear career growth goals. Ideally these are not tied to titles or bossing others around, which are negatives. Can you give an example of what you WOULD like to see here? There's some selection bias among the kinds of developers who tend to hang out on online technical communities and learn new things, but what IS the right long term goal, and how is this different from "desire to ship"? Sure, I'd like to work on meaningful projects and have enough breadth and depth of knowledge to design and contribute in a meaningful way in them, but if we're being totally honest my career goals are absolutely "make enough money to pay the mortgage, go on the occasional vacation, and save for retirement". I'm not in this to be a rock star who works 100 hours a week for the chance to be a multimillionaire, and I'm not in this to achieve fame in the developer community. I'm in it to get a paycheck doing work that is intellectually stimulating while still having enough free time to do things OTHER than work, but it's long been obvious that you're not allowed to say that in a job interview, so what ARE you looking for people to say? To put it another way, in the title terms you don't want to discuss, I have no desire to be a principle architect or C*O. I'm perfectly content being a good-to-great senior-level engineer who's a solid team contributor if not in control of everything. I'm on board with your other qualifications - continual learning, adapting, and gaining exposure to new technologies is great - but is there a limit to career growth? Based simply on number of positions in existence, it's impossible for everyone in the field to keep growing and advancing indefinitely.

grandalf 11y ago
Well, I ideally like to see some interests that are on the edge of the candidate's current skill-set which indicate that he/she is aware that technology is changing and that we must all plan ahead a bit to remain relevant and employable in 5 years. Not trend-tracking, but deepening and broadening the skill-set.
- tamana 11y ago
  Why do you care how good a candidate will be at getting a new job after yours?

SonicSoul 11y ago

these are all great traits, but how do you determine them in an interview? for example openness. Everyone will say they are open and interested to new ideas, maybe accept few odd cases. how do you test for rationality? do you wait to catch them on something and keep drilling until they admit defeat?

grandalf 11y ago
I've found that people who are open usually think of the interview as a way to learn new things and to determine whether it's a good fit. They will ask questions and seem to enjoy gathering knowledge. Rationality is more of a value than a litmus test. Those who value rationality will understand systems thinking and will tend not to focus highly on authority (either being authoritative or deferring to someone else's authority).
- SonicSoul 11y ago
  thanks sounds like you've done your share of interviewing. It would be great to hear more about your experience if you ever want to write a more lengthy blog post on this subject. I still find it very hard to predict who will make for a great employee.. provided they do ok on technical side it's still more of an intuition thing rather than process.
  - grandalf 11y ago
    I should do that sometime. For some reason I'm much more inspired to write my ideas in a forum like HN than I am in a blog post or writeup.

elipsey 11y ago

>> - poker face -- does this person seem to be playing it close to the vest in the interview or otherwise have very low levels of openness? By nature I am pretty open, and not especially competitive. While my credentials are not great, I have been praised by certain mentors for other desirable attributes in this list: open mindedness, humility, pragmatism, adaptability, willingness to collaborate, and “growth mindset.” The problem with these attitudes is that they can work to your disadvantage around non-technical authority figures. For example, a little while ago I was invited to meeting with possible collaborator in another department. After being introduced, I asked few general questions about his project. He probed for clarification until I finally said something he found technically wanting, and then made a great show of grandstanding at my expense in front of the group, but didn't answer the question. My (non-developer) boss was very impressed with him, but other employees that had to work with this guy were not as impressed. I wasn't invited back, although maybe that was good thing. Obviously it's not good to seem evasive in interviews, but in general I have had to learn the hard way that not everyone at work wants to be my friend. How do others here deal with this sort problem? Edit: I guess I'm not sure how far I have to go in the direction of measured answers before it might seem evasive in an interview. Because of these experiences, I'm probably inclined to give more measured or carefully considered answers in general to people I don't know well. I'm not sure what degree of this sort of behavior will seem evasive. My last boss told me once that I was generally "very careful." Maybe that's a hint? So what I mean to ask is: how do others calibrate their degree of openess to a given situation, in an interview or otherwise?

bovermyer 11y ago
Not everyone wants to be your friend, but everyone SHOULD want to work together towards a common goal. The trick is in getting the two parties involved to see that common goal and why it's in their own best interests. It sounds like the person you're talking about was using the conversation not as a way to acquire help, but rather to demonstrate that he didn't need it, probably in an effort to boost his own status in his social group. You're better off not working with that type of person.
- elipsey 11y ago

rntz 11y ago

A big long list of relevant but subjective traits is a perfect vector for bias to creep in. Take what you call "poker face", for example - how do you measure openness? By how well they make small talk? What if they're just nervous because of the interview; what if they experience social anxiety; or what if they're just an introvert, and don't tend to be open around new people? For a less trivial example, take "resourcefulness". To a large extent, resourcefulness is determined by access to resources. Continued learning after college takes more than curiosity: it takes a bunch of free time to burn on reading, hacking, debugging, etc. What if the interviewee has been spending their time outside of work raising a family instead?

grandalf 11y ago
I agree about the possibility of bias creeping in. On the other hand, humans are biased, so understanding how to hire for success within your own (or your organization's) biases is useful. Some people would want the opposite candidate to the one I described. Resourcefulness is more of a mindset. New parent? OK, what have you discovered about childrearing that you didn't anticipate? What will you do differently next time? What is your ideal work/life balance? These are all relevant things, and sometimes the young parent is a superb hire and may read very interesting books in anticipation of having more time to hack in a couple of years.
- emcq 11y ago
  FYI asking people what they do outside work is often a big HR no-no because it can easily fall into illegal but accidental discriminatory questions that are unrelated to the job which can be unnecessary PR and legal risks for your company. I like the attributes you're probing but I'd keep it within the context of engineering and programming if that's what you're hiring for. That's part of the reason open source and github projects are such strong signals in hiring.
  - grandalf 11y ago
    True. I typically ask about technology related interests.

tracker1 11y ago

Regarding your last point... sometimes, it's a matter of being professional. You don't want to go on a diatribe about all that was wrong in a former position or company. It depends on context of course, but in the end, sometimes there are reasons not to be completely open. In my personal life, I try to live unfiltered. Not mean, and work more to filter on sensitive subjects, but I mean that let thoughts, even incomplete ones flow. Otherwise, I personally tend to stay in my head, and not let much of anything out. It's a balance. I can't speak for others, but would say that your interpretation on the last point may not always be the correct one.

grandalf 11y ago
I think this is a valid point. My characterization of openness in my initial comment was a bit narrow. I think the most important aspect is openness to new ideas and experiences, and willingness to put one's self out there a bit.

fweespee_ch 11y ago

> - poker face -- does this person seem to be playing it close to the vest in the interview or otherwise have very low levels of openness? This is a big warning sign and an instant do not hire. You do realize many people are just naturally hard to read right? I'm so hard to read people have made comments about how, if I was going to a wedding, they couldn't be sure if it was mine based on how neutral my delivery is. The only time I'm easy to read is when I'm visibly irritated and/or angry. This is also part of why people think I have a temper, they miss literally all the warning signs for weeks/months/years so to them it comes out of "nowhere" despite the fact I've verbally expressed unhappiness to varying degrees. However, the neutrality of the delivery causes them to assume I don't care that much [so they continue, repeatedly].

bjourne 11y ago

It's telling that in your list you never once mentioned "Actually possesses the technical skills required to do a good job."

pklausler 11y ago
Skills become obsolete. Aptitudes don't.
- grandalf 11y ago
  Exactly.
ionforce 11y ago
I just had this discussion at work... I think that it is implicit in this context that a minimum amount of technical ability be met. Otherwise we'd just be hiring "nice people". Obviously we don't do that.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

_yosefk 11y ago

I think I can totally make that impression now. I totally couldn't when I was younger - and when I would have provided you much more value for the money (meaning, I'd work my ass off for peanuts.) I would have failed on numerous grounds: * desire to ship: more like "I don't care who uses my work, I just want a job" * desire to grow: more like "I don't know what people grow into, I just want a job" * rationality: I dunno, I might have tried to fake understanding something when I didn't out of fear * poker face: I dunno, probably I'd have "very low levels of openness" because fuck, I really really need a job and I'm super nervous In general, usually the guy who appears nice, sensible and calm is indeed a great hire, but they cost a fortune because they're actually quite rare. A very simple way to hire pretty great people cheaply is opening the doors for the hordes of somewhat-mentally-imbalanced people.

grandalf 11y ago
Those are good points. You're right I'm describing a fairly rare kind of hire, and a solid process must take into consideration the reality that not everyone is that strong or interviews that well, yet may have other highly valuable traits.
- chipsy 11y ago
  Perhaps an appropriate measure for interviewing is to do some psychological profiling to spot where a candidate is imbalanced, and then incorporate into the remainder of questioning. As an interviewer, you're always going to be biasing towards your own strengths and downplaying weaknesses, and although there are personalities that pose more or less danger to others, there isn't a perfect personality overall.

kafkaesq 11y ago

Those are great qualities to filter for. Yet out in the rest of the world, come interview time, it's... "So, how would go about sorting a quadrillion integers?"

JohnTHaller 11y ago

In addition to these being great things to look for in a candidate, these are also great things to strive for as a coder. Adaptability - being able to look at a change in direction/target market/etc as an exciting challenge keeps you less stressed Openness - always learning keeps your brain's plasticity up, keeps you happier, and helps you be ready for whatever new concept/language/whatnot will be useful next Resourcefulness - being able to be a combination of self-sufficient and knowing where/how to acquire the resources/skills you need when they're needed helps keep the stress down Desire to Ship - if you haven't gotten the chance to deliver something to real users, do it. Somehow, anyhow you can. Whether at a 9-to-5 or doing open source stuff in your spare time. Seeing how the work you do can affect others, make their jobs easier (or even possible in the first place), make their lives better, etc is a game-changer if you haven't done it yet. And if you're working on something you don't care about shipping, you're probably working on the wrong thing/for the wrong company. Desire to Grow - Several of the above help with this and the whole "keep moving forward" thing. The more you learn, the more experience you have, the more you can build and ship useful/interesting/fun/cool things. Rationality - You can't grow, adapt, and gain new resources without screwing up. We all do it. Follow that with admitting it, analyzing it, and learning from it. Sometimes you learn the most about a situation like this, often about yourself and your own inner-workings. That gives you the knowledge to be able to start working on improving those inner-workings. Territoriality - Turf wars are always a mess. Whether at a company or in an open source project. So, figuring out ways to let things overlap and allowing different groups to help make each other better helps you in the long run. And it's always gratifying to take a win-lose and turn it into a straight win. Poker Face - Be honest with your interviewer and expect the same from them. Why would you want to keep things close to the vest and wind up in a company/team/situation that isn't the best fit for you and doesn't fully allow you to adapt, be open, grow, ship, etc? All the above will help with growing and enjoying tech. You'll still have to deal with interviews/companies like the one posted here, unfortunately. I'm learning that now as I'm exploring getting back into working for a company full time.

kpwagner 11y ago

I feel like the whole "poker face" thing has been my achilles heal. I AM guarded with a lot of my personal information; in my experience for good reason. So what do you do in your free time? FUCK YOU. If your answer isn't play softball and train for marathons, it's a way-ahead/way-behind scenario. Maybe you get lucky and interview with someone who has shared interests. > I really like movies. I watch a lot of modern movies just for entertainment, but I also watch a lot of classics, even boring ones, to try to fill out my knowledge. I would love to make a short film and get it accepted to a film festival. < Huh... which means: so you're, like, not very social? And you don't seem very serious about your career if you are trying make movies or whatever. Good luck getting into Sundance, whatever the fuck that is. I once, only once, made the horrendous mistake of telling two interviewers (they were doing the old gang-fuck) that I was passionate about Starcraft II (it was 2011 or something). I thought, what the hey, the truth will out. If I'm just open and genuine at least that will come across as a positive. They actually openly ridiculed me and subsequently told me that they weren't the kind of company that extended much free time or control over schedule to their junior employees, which I thought was especially interesting (frustrating) for two reasons: 1) Why the fuck are you asking me about my free time if I won't have any? 2) They just got through explaining how their company didn't have any hierarchy. So what the fuck is a "junior employee" in a company with no hierarchy? On non-personal subjects, saying "I don't know" has never worked as well as everyone claims. Oh, just say, "I don't know". That shows maturity and confidence. WTF? Whenever I said, "I don't know" in an interview, the interviewer kept pressing me for an answer until I produced some garbage that I'm sure sounded rather like BS, because it was.

yxhuvud 11y ago
If they openly admit they give no free time, then it wasn't a place for you. Meaning that it was a good thing dropping SC2 into the discussion.
- kpwagner 11y ago
  Ultimately, I agree. It's complex though; every job I've ever had has left a sour taste in my mouth, yet I still need to eat and pay bills. And despite the difficulties I've encountered actually getting jobs (interviewing), my employers have always said I was doing great work.

aagha 11y ago

These are all great, but I think you're missing something much more basic: commute time. All of the above are great, but if someone's commute time to work (and home again) are intolerable, they will not last.

nullstring 11y ago

How do you test for these in an interview ?