3 ms·

I think Zed should know by now that the tech interview is also a personality screen. It's helpful to know if you're hiring someone who rolls his eyes when asked

by neilk 16y ago

I think Zed should know by now that the tech interview is also a personality screen. It's helpful to know if you're hiring someone who rolls his eyes when asked to do something he thinks trivial. Or who wants to be treated like a rockstar. Also, it's a way of getting team buy-in, even when hiring a lead. Whatever the team rituals are to establish respect, the new guy has to pass them. If it's dumb questions about missionaries and cannibals, that's lame, but so be it.

stcredzero 16y ago
In short, ritual justifies lameness?
- ekanes 16y ago
  No, he's saying lame rituals help you avoid hiring prima donnas.
  - stcredzero 16y ago
    It may also scare away those who do not like lameness. I once had an interview for a Smalltalk position, where, after the 3rd question, I asked, "are all of these questions from the well known list of Smalltalk interview questions? I already know those." I suspect that this lost me the position, which I think is strange, but fortunate. The lameness of an interview is often a good indicator of how bureaucratized or politicized the corporate environment is.
    - rbanffy 16y ago
      > It may also scare away those who do not like lameness. This is precisely the point ekanes was trying to make. It's not lameness, but perceived lameness. If you perceive the company as lame, you would not be a good fit anyway. But rest assured that, if I were the interviewer, your recognition of a known list of interview questions would not cost you the position. And my interviews are neither lame, nor only about coding skills.
  - neilk 16y ago
    No, they were separate points. 1) Teams screen for personality with interviews in person. Often by putting the candidate into a situation where they have to deal with someone vastly superior, or sometimes inferior, in skills. 2) There are ALSO the ritual parts which achieve team buy-in. Sometimes these are silly puzzle questions. Other times there are more useful methods of scoring the candidate. Was this really unclear? I'm not being sarcastic, I'm amazed that someone thought I was making a single point. I guess everyone thought I was dissing Zed obliquely (...kinda, but not really) and of course everyone loves personality conflict. :(
georgieporgie 16y ago
> It's helpful to know if you're hiring someone who rolls his eyes when asked to do something he thinks trivial. I'd rather have someone who rolls their eyes at something trivial (then gets it done) than someone who appears to simply find any task engrossing and worthwhile. If you don't find trivial and repeated tasks mundane and irritating, you're probably going to be a worker bee who spends more time acting as an automaton than thinking.

by neilk 16y ago

stcredzero 16y ago

In short, ritual justifies lameness?

ekanes 16y ago
No, he's saying lame rituals help you avoid hiring prima donnas.
- stcredzero 16y ago
  It may also scare away those who do not like lameness. I once had an interview for a Smalltalk position, where, after the 3rd question, I asked, "are all of these questions from the well known list of Smalltalk interview questions? I already know those." I suspect that this lost me the position, which I think is strange, but fortunate. The lameness of an interview is often a good indicator of how bureaucratized or politicized the corporate environment is.
  - rbanffy 16y ago
    > It may also scare away those who do not like lameness. This is precisely the point ekanes was trying to make. It's not lameness, but perceived lameness. If you perceive the company as lame, you would not be a good fit anyway. But rest assured that, if I were the interviewer, your recognition of a known list of interview questions would not cost you the position. And my interviews are neither lame, nor only about coding skills.
- neilk 16y ago
  No, they were separate points. 1) Teams screen for personality with interviews in person. Often by putting the candidate into a situation where they have to deal with someone vastly superior, or sometimes inferior, in skills. 2) There are ALSO the ritual parts which achieve team buy-in. Sometimes these are silly puzzle questions. Other times there are more useful methods of scoring the candidate. Was this really unclear? I'm not being sarcastic, I'm amazed that someone thought I was making a single point. I guess everyone thought I was dissing Zed obliquely (...kinda, but not really) and of course everyone loves personality conflict. :(

georgieporgie 16y ago

> It's helpful to know if you're hiring someone who rolls his eyes when asked to do something he thinks trivial. I'd rather have someone who rolls their eyes at something trivial (then gets it done) than someone who appears to simply find any task engrossing and worthwhile. If you don't find trivial and repeated tasks mundane and irritating, you're probably going to be a worker bee who spends more time acting as an automaton than thinking.