14 ms·

-If respect isn't reciprocal, run. -If you only get canned questions, run. -If questions are machine gunned without any followups, run. -If the hiring/interv

• cylinder 11y ago
  If they ask you to come back and make a "presentation" to a group (i.e. work on a project and come present it, non-technical role), run. Especially if they don't pay you for your time.
  • grkvlt 11y ago
    Here's some negative anecdata on this: our company (a smallish startup, doing open source application management in the cloud) has an awesome management team, and we ask every engineer to give a short talk, with slides, about some relevant interesting subject. This has definitely been a great way of finding good candidates who fit well.
    • cylinder 11y ago
      You should still pay for their time.
• swilliams 11y ago
  Yup. To riff a little bit on those bullet points: If the interviewer[s] is displaying that behavior during an interview, expect the entire company to have exhibit the same stuff, only by an order of magnitude more. If the interviewer doesn't respect you, then management doesn't respect or listen to employees. If you only get canned questions, then the company cares more about checking boxes than creative thinking. If the interview process is complicated, _everything_ is complicated. If they aren't paying attention, then nobody pays attention in any meeting, so they get repeated, or stuff constantly falls through the cracks.
• EliRivers 11y ago
  If they give you an IQ test or similar, run. That's interesting; it conflicts with one of the few pieces of evidence I have about successful correlation in recruitment. I don't have the study to hand, but I'm sure its conclusions were that people who do well at IQ tests (although they might have been more general intelligence tests rather than specifically IQ tests) tend to make better technical employees (or indeed, almost any kind of employee), and that's it's one of the few actually reliable indicators. As a strong rule of thumb, smart people are better at technical jobs. What's the thinking behind taking it as a sign of a bad employer?
  • Overtonwindow 11y ago
    It's possible they are referring to these tests that companies are giving now in order to weed out certain types of people. They're not exactly IQ test, but rather tests for cultural fit. They can be quite good at weeding out minorities, women, older people, and people with disabilities.
  • talmand 11y ago
    Well, I believe IQ tests during an interview process is illegal in the US. Anyway, I would say it's not necessarily a good way to consider a candidate as the results can be subjective and doesn't indicate what to do if the best coder in the area sucks at taking tests while under pressure.
    • johansch 11y ago
      > as the results can be subjective As opposed to all the other completely objective ways of evaluating a candidate?
      • talmand 11y ago
        Good point, I guess I should have said it's a subjective result that too many treat as if it were an objective pass/fail result.
        • 11y ago
• chris11 11y ago
  -If a pattern exists of mistakes (forgot to call, etc), run. Is this applicable to bigger companies? I've noticed that some companies figure out where to place entry level engineers during or after an offer is made. And then getting a good recruiter seems to come down to luck at some places. I once had an interviewer not show up for a phone interview at one place. But I wouldn't necessarily say that my boss would have been horrible, I don't even know if I was interviewing for a specific team.
  • wnissen 11y ago
    Big or not, when they're making you an offer they are on their best behavior. I would not expect anything like that level of attention after hiring.
  • bpchaps 11y ago
    Yep, the big companies especially. Maybe mistakes isn't the right word. "Constantly fucking up" might be better. The left hand almost never talks to the right hand and miscommunications happen all the time. One example - It took one of those big companies three weeks to get the last signature of 6 to signoff on my hire. There was nothing anybody could do to push it forward. That turned out to be one of the worst jobs I've had. 6 months in, they ended up firing the NOC after forcing them to train a NOC out in Bangalore who would call me 5 times a day for unrelated issues. I complained hard. My boss, who I talked to maybe once a month responded with, "Welcome to $COMPANY." I quit two weeks later.
• cname 11y ago
  This only works when they make it easy for you. There are a lot of places where everything seems great during the interview (and they don't do any of the things you mentioned), but then it turns out to be terrible. There's also the problem that even good companies can be really bad at interviewing. I think it's kind of like dating: if they don't give you an obvious signal, you probably won't know until it's too late, and sometimes when you get an "obvious" signal you might be wrong anyway. The only advice I can think of--beyond heeding obvious warning signs--is to try to work some place that's doing something you actually care about. Then you're less likely to run into incompatibility issues, and the effect of toxic people may be mitigated. Another angle is that you probably can't avoid working with assholes, so you can get organized and be prepared to push your own agenda. Don't back down too easily. I've seen this work fairly well, but you have to be ready to deal with the stress and potential fallout. Depends on circumstances, YMMV, etc.
  • bpchaps 11y ago
    Agreed. That list is definitely surface level and should be taken on a case by case basis. My recent employment adventure turned me cynical. My then-soon-to-be boss seemed great during the interview. He was technical, his questions were interesting and deep and the team seemed happy. Turns out he was a complete sociopath who made everyone's life living hell. The unhappy weren't invited to the interview. The first clue from the second day at drinks should've been, "I voted no in hiring you, but [his boss/my previous company's CTO] convinced me to change my mind." in front of the other senior admin. Kinda downhill from there. What makes these situations so difficult is that leaving a job early has such a strong negative effect on your future work prospects. Even worse, being unhappy at a job affects your work prospects, too. There really isn't a win in those situations.
    • bigiain 11y ago
      Leaving a job after the second day (or even the second week) doesn't need to have _any_ negative effects, you just leave it out of your CV.
      • 11y ago
• lcfcjs 11y ago
  Wow this is an awesome list. If a pattern exists of mistakes (forgot to call, etc), run. This one is huge! The number of times I've had the interviewer not call me right on time always ends up being a really bad sign.
• zeemonkee3 11y ago
  - take home tests/projects longer than a couple hours' worth. Especially before they ask some basic questions such as expected salary or at least a preliminary phone interview.
  • ljw1001 11y ago
    yeah, someone recently asked me to fix a bug deep in their code, which they said would take about 20 hours with no discussion of salary or any other steps in the process.
    • spinlock 11y ago
      They _said_ it would be 20 hours? That's crazy.
    • eru 11y ago
      Charge them. That sounds like at least a week of fulltime work. Check what consultants take for that amount of work in your area. If they say no, you say no. Also, if there's no pay, wouldn't you have copyright over that part of the code then? You could arbitrarily tell to stop using your code at any time, and sue them if they don't..
  • donatj 11y ago
    I spent probably six hours on a take home project for Facebook. When I returned it to them they then told me that after reviewing my resume they wouldn't be considering my solution and would not look at it at all - and I could re-apply in a year. I'm still upset about the massive waste of time. Why did you not consider my resume before giving me a massive take home project. I took a day off work to build this thing, the least you could do is look at it. I shined that code to a beautiful luster.
    • hiphipjorge 11y ago
      I spent like 10 hours working on this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11452445 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11452445 and I thought I nailed it. Unfortunately, they passed and never told me what was wrong with it. To this day I'm still curious what the problem was! Anyone here from FB who passed this and knows what I did wrong?
• Overtonwindow 11y ago
  The needlessly complicated one I agree with completely. Anyone had to go through a top grading process? Absolute crap in my humble opinion. You jump through a lot of hoops that takes up a lot of time, not just of you, but a lot of people in the process, and at the end of the day you don't get the best candidate. You get the best actor. I work for years for a major defense contractor that try top grading, and it was an abysmal failure. We got good liars, we did not get good employees.
• davimack 11y ago
  "If they give you an IQ test or similar, run." Amen. IQ tests, or tests to see if you're psychologically a "good fit for the organization," are a sign that they haven't a clue what they're looking for, they don't trust their own judgment, and couldn't identify a good developer in a million years. As a proxy for developer performance, IQ tests are utter crap - but IQ tests are something that's intelligible to your run-of-the-mill idiot manager, so they get done. Psych tests are similar - they're saying that they can't figure out by talking with you whether you're a nice person or a psychopath. Which, OK, to be fair, psychopaths might hide it fairly well ... but if so they'd hide it well enough on the test, as well. Totally agree it's down to how human they are towards you. If they're willing to see you as an individual vs. whether they want a new part of their machine.
  • EliRivers 11y ago
    I couldn't disagree more. While I've only once taken an intelligence test for a job, it was a relaxed thirty questions in thirty minutes involving pretty simple mathematics and pattern spotting, with some pretty low level word play. I believe that this kind of intelligence test correlates well to being able to think coherently and abstractly in both numerical and non-numerical terms, and as such correlates well to being a good programmer. As a proxy for developer performance, intelligence is strongly correlated.
    • davimack 11y ago
      So, on the basis of once having taken an IQ test that you found not problematic and after which they hired you, you feel good about them. That's great. Sample size of 1, obviously it must be unquestionably a good thing. If developers aren't evaluated as people, but as units who are expected to hit some threshold of "intelligence," then that says something about the company asking you to take the test. If everybody who tested well included everybody who was intelligent, or able to code well, you might be able to use it as a proxy. If not, you're missing out as a company. The students who achieve the highest grades in school aren't those at the peak of the IQ range - they're the ones who actually have to put in the study time to learn the material, rather than cruising on previous knowledge. Do you want the person whose IQ score is better, or do you want the one who will do the work? If you want the better IQ score, what will you do to get them to perform when asked to do what might be regarded as drudgery? Or are you saying that they give IQ tests to screen out the really bright bulbs, so as to isolate those who are willing to slog through whatever they're given?
• x0x0 11y ago
  The worst boss I ever had (and he wasn't even the one removed by police! True story!) went through 5 admins in under a year. Almost six if one of them had quit before new years instead of just after. Chat up the office staff. If they're treated like shit, run. If the founder blows through them, run. You can find some of this on linkedin. You can search specifically for former employers on linkedin. Consider how many of them there are; there shouldn't be lots for an A round startup.
• klenwell 11y ago
  On the subject of true stories: - While you're going through your questions with the interviewer, he suddenly looks up from his laptop and says, "These are great questions. I'm going to have to use them next time I interview." - Interviewing manager, sitting next to CTO, says to you, "Convince my boss here that automated tests are worth the investment." - Executive of SEO company casually lets it drop that they're being sued by Google. - You're meeting after 5pm and interviewing manager jokes with CTO during interview how his wife is the one making his smartphone buzz like a swarm of angry hornets. Then as you're exchanging your farewells in the lobby an hour or so later at end of interview, a fuming woman storms in, stands next to manager glaring, no one is introduced, and you awkwardly take your leave. - The conversation somehow turns to what you would do if you won the lottery. You say you'd probably spend more time working on open source projects. The CTO interviewing you remarks that he'd buy a harem. The HR rep and the other developer in the interview, both female, laugh uneasily. A couple minutes later he repeats the comment.
  • speleo_engr 11y ago
    Those are good. The only one I have worth mentioning was a conversation that went like this: Manager: So you like caving? Me: Yeah, I was able to go on a month long expedition last summer to the mountains of Peru. Manager: I can't believe your old job didn't fire you for taking a month off. Me: I gave a lot of notice and had the vacation saved up. Manager: That would never happen here. I have a problem leaving for a week. In retrospect, I really appreciated the honesty. Declined that offer without hesitation.
    • yread 11y ago
      What country do you live that they can fire you (or the manager) for taking a month off?
      • planteen 11y ago
        USA They could easily threaten or guilt trip you when asking for a month off... If they would actually follow through is another question
• partisan 11y ago
  If you see a video game console, a table top game, or alcohol, run.
  • khedoros 11y ago
    I recently saw all three at an open house for a company that will remain nameless. It doesn't change that my friend working there finds it a fabulous work environment.
    • partisan 11y ago
      Just curious, how would you describe your friend?
      • khedoros 11y ago
        Middle-aged female with a husband and children. Practical, but laid-back. Admittedly, she's coming from a job with an overload of work, iterating on a kind of boring, mature product. At the new employer, she's involved with some cool, new stuff, big enough that I saw it on a tech news site online before she told me about the release. She's been there about a year so far.
  • khedoros 11y ago
    I recently saw all three at an open house for a company that will remain nameless. It doesn't change that my friend working there finds it a fabulous work environment.
  • eru 11y ago
    We have all three at Google, but we don't show the alcohol to the interviewees.
  • voltagex_ 11y ago
    I would love to work in an area where I could play a quick game at lunch or thrash out an idea while playing Tabletop Football. You may not like that, and that's fine.
• jotux 11y ago
  >If you only get canned questions >If they give you an IQ test or similar, run. I ran across this study a few months ago that says IQ-like tests, structured interviews (canned questions), and work-sample evaluations were some of the few useful interview tools for selecting good employees [1]. [1]. http://mavweb.mnsu.edu/howard/Schmidt%20and%20Hunter%201998%20Validity%20and%20Utility%20Psychological%20Bulletin.pdf http://mavweb.mnsu.edu/howard/Schmidt%20and%20Hunter%201998%...
  • jraines 11y ago
    Curious about OP's assertion on this as well. Only one I ever got was from a company widely regarded as one of the best to work for in Atlanta (I ended up not taking their offer so I can't say). Unrelated to that -- one of my personal red flags is poor handling of the post interview follow up. If a company drags their feet, gives conflicting signals about next steps, etc., they probably are a mess.
    • sobbybutter 11y ago
      Which company?
      • hueving 11y ago
        Coca Cola: That recipe must be protected by state of the art custom techonology
    • bpchaps 11y ago
      It's akin to needlessly using technology to solving a problem or requiring someone to write a hugely time consuming code sample. Sure, theoretically it's a great idea, but since they're never done right and they never address the issues that affect the fringe. The worst I've seen was where I had to do 100 questions and half were spatial intelligence (gameable and wtf). It looked like an incredibly expensive piece of software. Didn't get the job, thankfully, but the company's now known for having a policy of not being able to talk about work out loud if you're in IT. The other places that gave me tests had dissimilar, but equally insane workplace policies. Rambling list: -At some level, the person interviewing you (or management) doesn't trust their intuition to find the right candidate. -It's an easy way to throw someone out of a pool despite all else. There's a reason it's illegal to do IQ tests. -Mental health issues such as dyslexia or ADD. -I've taken maybe five intelligence tests for work and none of them have been the same. Where's the standard? -Companies have a weird tendency to use puzzles such as the "three light bulbs" one. All that does is test if you've heard it before. "I want to see how you think" makes no sense when the question's on paper and there's 100 questions just like it. -A lot of these tests are gameable since you can just practice beforehand. -Test anxiety sucks.
• galistoca 11y ago
  Most of these only apply to startups since a lot of job interviews at larger companies are done by people who probably won't end up being your manager. It's easy to say "if you see such and such, run", but I doubt you will be able to put it into practice if you were the one in that situation, especially if the job itself is attractive. I'm not sure if you've ever been in a position where you're the one who gave the interview, but from my experience, most of the behaviors that seem to have pissed you off have nothing to do with the quality of the interviewer. It's your choice to "run" every time you get into these situations, but I wouldn't do that if I were you, especially if you're talking about larger companies like Google, Facebook, etc.
  • bpchaps 11y ago
    All of these are reflections more on the company, through the interviewer. This list isn't just for startups.. I'm not sure where you get that idea. My worst experiences have been at large companies. The worst was Google ;). If nobody runs, like I'm suggesting, then these issues will just continue. Hell, a week ago I ran from a nice job. The two interviewers were on their laptops, not paying attention. After the interview, I sent a rejection email to the internal recruiter and later got a very, very apologetic response and phone call. We're all humans, so why act like dicks about it? The only time I've interviewed, I was 23 and hiring for a release engineer at an enormous bank on a giant global FX system. No training. No advice.. nothin'. Even though the candidate was technical, I got an unsettling vibe from him. We eventually hired him anyway since "weird feeling" isn't good on paper. Oh man, was he awful. For example, during training and meetings, he would be on his phone, texting constantly. He made a mistake while training him that caused an outage that eventually led to me getting let go. A bit of interview training there would have gone a long, long way and should have been mandatory, or at the very least, offered.
    • galistoca 11y ago
      I get the idea from my own experience of interviewing at one of those "larger companies". The reason why they look disinterested is because they are indeed disinterested. A lot of times developers get pulled into interviews regardless of whether they have some important task at hand, and nothing makes you more frustrating than losing focus. And a lot of cases you get the notice about the interview the same morning or the day before. As a result sometimes I just go in without any preparation (honestly I would rather spend my time working on my own important task at hand than preparing to come up with some clever interview question for some guy who we may or may not even hire, and whom I will probably have nothing to do with even if he does get hired) I am not saying this is right, and I also think the system is broken, but it's system's fault, not the interviewer. So if you "ran" from Google because of this reason, you probably made a mistake, because at Google you can move around different departments after you get hired.
• Havoc 11y ago
  >-If they give you an IQ test or similar, run. Not always though. e.g. For my previous employer it was par for the course to run everyone through multiple rounds of psychometric testing. And again during a major promotion cycle. Nothing wrong with it in my view - in fact if it saves me the hassle of dealing with a slow colleague then I'm all for it.
• hndl 11y ago
  These are some great points. Given that the OP mentioned that he/she's a developer I think some additional points to consider are: - A very biased outlook to problem solving. A lot of times I see my own boss think that the right answer (to an interview question) is the one that worked for our particular case without considering that the candidate didn't have the same constraints. - I always like to ask 'the boss' what their idea of a good team is. Some of them will say stuff like 'A team is good when they're meeting deliverables' or 'A hardworking team' etc etc. Somehow the tone weighs in here -- you want a boss who is understanding yet not a pushover, who justifies (and thereby convinces you of) his decisions when it comes to a solving problems. - You really want to avoid the bosses who have a desire to work long hours for no real reason. This is important because of two reasons: they don't focus on the real problems and they don't value their teammates time. A good boss wants to make sure that their team is aligned with the company goals and that everyone on the team is happy and is enjoying their time with their colleagues. Hope that helps!
• devin 11y ago
  -If you only get canned questions, run. -If questions are machine gunned without any followups, run. -If they're not paying attention [0], run. I'm surprised to see that many of the answers here don't seem to mention that in order to detect an environment that won't suit you, you ought to have questions for your interviewers. If the questions you're asking are canned, or _your_ questions are machine gunned, and you don't follow up on the responses of your interviewers you're missing out on an excellent opportunity to get a read on what it's really like to work there. I'll grant you that reading people is not a science, but if don't go any deeper than "So what's it like to work here?", you're missing a big opportunity. Make your questions unique, so your interviewer has good reason to pay attention. Don't just hit the softballs and nod. If they give you a vague answer, try to get them to be more specific. For example, follow up "How are team successes and failures treated at $COMPANY?" with "Interesting. Could you give me an example of a specific situation where the team failed, and how it was dealt with?" with "Do you think it was the right response? Do you think there's any room for improvement?" -If the interviewer[s] lacks empathy, it's a sign somewhere up the chain that something's not right. I believe this up to a point. As I said before, getting a clear read on someone you've just met is not always going to be easy. Yes, I believe it's a positive sign when your interviewer displays some level of empathy during the interview, but not everyone puts it out there. Don't make the mistake of thinking you know _exactly_ what the other person was thinking, or how they were feeling. I think a lot of this comes down to going with your gut. Sometimes things are not exactly as advertised, so another piece of advice I'd give you is: Don't overthink it. Human beings have evolved to detect when something is, you know, "a little off". Trust yourself, but attempt to verify. Finally, if you aren't in a rush, I've almost always been given the opportunity at the end of the interview to "reach out with any additional questions". Let the interview simmer for a day or so, and then take them up on their offer. Think about where you might have seen some hesitation, bases you may not have thought to cover in the initial interview, and see how they respond. Trying to be clever in detecting a bad workplace neglects one of the most powerful tools at your disposal, your ability to ask questions that'll reveal whether it's a good place for you or not.
• bokglobule 11y ago
  If you're interviewing for a job for you, treat it as though you are interviewing them. Do they ask good questions? How do they respond to yours? Are you having a conversation more than an 'interview'? Ask them to describe the ideal employee- the answer might surprise you. Trust your gut instincts. If something seems "off", run. If you're interviewing people for a job you're filling, focus on getting them to do a small test project and bring it in for the on-site. I've done this for years, never had someone say no. Worst that happens, they're too busy and back out. Fine, no worries. Works well for developers, release managers, program managers, technical writers, etc. Basically you want to be sure that they can solve problems. Memorized knowledge of facts has almost no value (to me) these days; things are changing way too fast for that to matter in the long run. Never understood why the Google's, Microsoft's, ask the goofy questions like "why are manhole covers round?". To me, the hires that are a joy to work with are adaptable, learn things pretty fast, take pride in what they create, show leadership by helping others in their group, and are dependable.
  • fsloth 11y ago
    "If you're interviewing for a job for you, treat it as though you are interviewing them." This. "Trust your gut instincts. If something seems "off", run." This is a much better advice than a list of arbitrary criteria of the quality of the interview process whose correlation with the work environment itself is unknown.
    • bpchaps 11y ago
      Problem is, if you don't even know where to begin and you just need a few ways to fill in the gaps that the rest of us have already done. Your advice is still good, but it seems more valid for experienced workers. Also, in my defense, I did it during a pomodoro break, so I didn't have much time to add more 'eh' advice. :) (why did that list blow up, anyway? I really don't understand this place....)
• overgard 11y ago
  I think the empathy thing is huge. If they don't treat you like a person during the interview, you can't expect them to do so after you're hired.
• zamalek 11y ago
  Just to add to this awesome answer: it is as much an interview for them as it is for you. Press them with hard questions.
  • arien 11y ago
    This. I usually make a list of things I know I want in a job and use those few "ask me anything" minutes to make sure a company ticks all these boxes (or as many as possible). I mean, if we're lucky enough to work in a sector with lots of offers available, better make the best of it by finding a place we truly enjoy. Maybe it ends up being one that pays you a bit less but has an amazing crew or great benefits or work/life balance. Find out what matters the most to you and make sure you get an acceptable answer (from several sources if possible) before committing to a company.
• kintamanimatt 11y ago
  > -If the recruiter tells you, "The path you're going down will lead to failure unless you do a startup. Frankly, I don't see you doing a startup"... run. Also true story. Can you explain this one a little bit please? I'm not quite sure I understand the sentiment here.
  • bpchaps 11y ago
    Sure. I was sent to a referral-only recruiter in finance who had a hard time finding positions for me. When I told him I got a job and how much I'd be making, he said that little gem and skulked away. Haven't heard from him since and now the guy who referred me to him is now my boss. :) The point is just that dismissive attitudes are everywhere in job searching, so it was just a damn good feeling to hear the guy with pie on his face.
• lucideer 11y ago
  Some of these are spot on, but some are a little absolutist. > -If respect isn't reciprocal, run. Yes, in theory, but this is deceptively difficult to judge accurately on first impression. Some good people are naturally less immediately personable than others and misconceptions are common. > -If the hiring/interview process is needlessly complicated, run. This is a bad sign in terms of the company as a whole, and could indicate that you'll need to wade through some needless bureaucracy in your prospective job from time to time, but this is relatively common in bigger companies and doesn't necessarily indicate anything negative about the actual team/leader/interviewer you'll be directly working with/under on a daily basis. > -If a pattern exists of mistakes (forgot to call, etc),run. Worth considering, but it seems a little picky to say a hard no based on this alone. Some of the best technical people I've worked with are not necessarily 100% organised administratively 100% of the time. > -If they're not paying attention [0], run. This happens far too often. Fully agree. Run!
  • seeing 11y ago
    Personable != respectful.
    • lucideer 11y ago
      I understand your distinction, but I'm talking about first impressions. They're not the same, but can still be easily confused until you spend a bit of time with someone.