6 ms·

> Despite all that I must finish by observing that regardless of our best efforts in the industry, hiring is still largely random. Well designed interview proce

> Despite all that I must finish by observing that regardless of our best efforts in the industry, hiring is still largely random. Well designed interview processes make it slightly better than random, which is why we do them. This article is a defense of an asymmetric process that stresses out software developers and forces them to jump through hoops. Slightly better than random selection is a garbage pay-off for the nonsense I've experienced in technical interviews.

rrhyne 7y ago
Dealing with stress well is a valuable skill. Many of those that do not manage emotions well become toxic. I personally would let a few great engineers who cannot find balance through tough deadlines, un-paved roadmaps, and tricky social situations find jobs elsewhere than hire people who cannot maintain their emotions.
- learc83 7y ago
  The kind of stress you deal with in technical interviews is nothing at all like the kind of stress you face in a functional workplace. If your normal work environment is anything like a whiteboard interview, I want nothing to do with your company.
  - granshaw 7y ago
    Yes. That kind of stress would be like trying to fix an issue causing the company to hemorrhage money within 30 mins without being able to google anything and with others looking over your shoulder and wanting you to explain your thoughts. Oh and you have to get it correct on a whiteboard first
    - milemi 7y ago
      These situations do happen in real life, minus the whiteboard.
      - learc83 7y ago
        You can't google anything, and people expect you to explain your thought process while solving an emergency issue with a 30 minute deadline? Again I don't want to work at this company.
        milemi 7y ago
        Sometimes there's no time to google, and you want to be talking to someone while you're doing it, as a sanity check. https://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/08/02/knight-capital-says-trading-mishap-cost-it-440-million/ https://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/08/02/knight-capital-says-... $10M/minute is an extreme case, but these things happen on a smaller scale all the time. I'm not saying this is the justification for coding interviews, just saying that it happens, and the ability to code something up quickly that also works correctly without having time to test it sometimes saves the day. I do think coding interviews that people are complaining about are good, and getting in shape to do well in them is good for you. You can tell it's good for you just by the amount of complaining people are doing :)
        learc83 7y ago
        >Sometimes there's no time to google What do you mean no time to Google? You're never going to be able to remember everything. Sure the ideal situation is that you're fixing a bug where you happen to know the exact syntax for every piece of every library you need. But in the very likely situation where you don't, of course you have time to google. >and the ability to code something up quickly that also works correctly without having time to test it sometimes saves the day. Often becuase the company has optimized the hiring process for people who are good at doing this vs. people who are good at designing maintainable, durable systems. If 30 minute, million dollar fixes is a frequent enough occurrence to make aptitude at them the primary or even a major factor in your hiring decision, you have done something horribly wrong. >I do think coding interviews that people are complaining about are good, and getting in shape to do well in them is good for you. Having hired people using many different techniques, I think that these types of interviews are only a bit better than random chance. They are a separate skill from 99% of daily programming work, and they are gameable. I also think they are nothing more than a fad caused by people cargo culting Google. Not a single other technical discipline widley uses this kind of stage performance based interview process. Not one. >and you want to be talking to someone while you're doing it, as a sanity check. That makes zero sense. Sure sometimes it helps to talk through a problem if you're working with someone who is also trying to solve the problem with you, and you might want to explain a fix after you solve the problem but before you push as a sanity check. But if it's a hard problem you can kick rocks if you expect me to explain what I'm thinking about while I'm concentrating on solving it--while you're watching over my shoulder, and are not actively engaged in helping me solve the problem. You're just slowing me down.
  - reallydontask 7y ago
    I think the issue is that some people either don't remember the stress of an interview or just don't get that stressed so they can't empathise with people that do get horrendously stressed in an interview. I'm with you on this one, if working at a company induces interview levels of a stress daily, even regularly, then please don't hire me.
    - rrhyne 7y ago
      You may have had some bad whiteboard sessions. Ours are are a working session WITH the candidate not against the candidate.
      - learc83 7y ago
        I do this as well. But it's not a few bad whiteboard sessions. The vast majority of whiteboard interviews are strictly adversarial.
      - reallydontask 7y ago
        I've never had a whiteboard session, these type of interviews are not common in the non-start-up world in the UK. I just get really, really stressed in an interview. To make matters worse, it seems that I project this aura of calm and self assurance, or so I've been told by two of my interviewers after they hired me, so that I don't even get a concession for obvious nervousness.
- gnusty_gnurc 7y ago
  I agree that handling stress and managing emotions is a super valuable skill. But I'll hard-pass any interviews that try to stress-test my ability to maintain my emotions.
  - cmonnow 7y ago
    you just mashed together the two phrases in an attempt to come up with a new meaning, but it falls short. handling stress = managing emotions = maintaining emotions in a stress-test
    - gnusty_gnurc 7y ago
      Yea that post didn't come out well. Either way it's not hard to see that I was trying to convey that any company that's going to put me through the wringer to see when I break down isn't worth my time or frustration. Be upfront about what you want or stop wasting my time and energy. It's like the scene at the end of Charlie and Chocolate Factory - or this video[1]. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHy06FMsezI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHy06FMsezI
seer 7y ago
In which case framing the test as “technical interview” would be a bit dishonest. You should name it “stress environment coping test”. But anyway you are right those moments do happen, but those times it’s usually “all hands on deck” kind of event where people are actively trying to help each other. Those are actually “fun” in a sense since you actually feel needed and encouraged rather than judged and scrutinized. And each time something like this happens, it usually means a failure of the company process as a whole. Can expect it from startups but definitely not from big companies. So if you honestly want to test that out for a candidate, it puts a huge red flag for him that said company is mismanaged. In effect you’re filtering for people that don’t know this - e.g. junior devs, or people who don’t care / tolerate it, so they won’t attempt to fix the mismanagement that allowed it to happen, the last thing you would want probably. Thinking about it you could even stage such a contrived stress test, and actually hire people that _do_ flip out as those would probably be the ones that care enough to fix longstanding issues.
esoterica 7y ago
You’re misattributing the cause of the stress. Any competitive job opening is intrinsically going to be stressful because there are there are X people interviewing for 1 position and you have to outperform the other (X-1) candidates. The interview format is irrelevant. The only “non stressful” way to do an interview is to hand out $500k/year job offers to every warm bodies that hands you their resume, no questions asked. Sorry, but that’s not going to happen.
- Apocryphon 7y ago
  I think you're getting at the core of the situation. Ultimately the interview is going to be stressful because it can only end in two ways. But I think there are ways to mitigate it, as suggested by some of the proposals in other comments. Another cause for stress is simply because the whole process is just so damned opaque. There's not just a power asymmetry between hirer and applicant, there's also an information asymmetry. At the end of the day, you don't know what the true criteria were used to judge you. You don't know if you hit a mark and was just passed over in favor of a better candidate, or if you bombed without realizing it, or one of the interviewers simply didn't like you. And at that point it's not simply losing out on the offer, it's losing out the time spent to get a rejection that blandly says that you weren't the right fit. And sometimes they don't even remember to reject you. Like the intrinsic stress of being at the mercy of an employer, it's part of the process that one just has to get used to. But one wonders if there's some better way. Perhaps pre-interview rubrics and post-interview feedback? Make applicants sign a waiver so they can't use it in a lawsuit. At least it'd be more transparent than the status quo.
  - gnusty_gnurc 7y ago
    Very much agreed. Opacity is the larger issue for me. Especially considering the disproportionate investment I have to make as an interviewee. And it seems people readily admit the process yields marginally better than random results - so it's pretty puzzling to see people defend it like there's not much to complain about.
- gnusty_gnurc 7y ago
  I don't agree that interviews for "competitive" jobs are inherently stressful. Insofar as any interview is nerve-wracking - I agree that's unavoidable. The point of hiring is finding anyone that's capable of doing the job, not overseeing a gladiator deathmatch. I get the sense that no one is vulnerable enough to admit that hiring is a toss-up and almost intractable problem. Even more annoying is that experienced and competent workers in industry are usually going to be the people that believe they'd be good at judging candidates when there's little evidence that tech competence translates to hiring competence.

rrhyne 7y ago

Dealing with stress well is a valuable skill. Many of those that do not manage emotions well become toxic. I personally would let a few great engineers who cannot find balance through tough deadlines, un-paved roadmaps, and tricky social situations find jobs elsewhere than hire people who cannot maintain their emotions.

learc83 7y ago
The kind of stress you deal with in technical interviews is nothing at all like the kind of stress you face in a functional workplace. If your normal work environment is anything like a whiteboard interview, I want nothing to do with your company.
- granshaw 7y ago
  Yes. That kind of stress would be like trying to fix an issue causing the company to hemorrhage money within 30 mins without being able to google anything and with others looking over your shoulder and wanting you to explain your thoughts. Oh and you have to get it correct on a whiteboard first
  - milemi 7y ago
    These situations do happen in real life, minus the whiteboard.
    - learc83 7y ago
      You can't google anything, and people expect you to explain your thought process while solving an emergency issue with a 30 minute deadline? Again I don't want to work at this company.
      - milemi 7y ago
        Sometimes there's no time to google, and you want to be talking to someone while you're doing it, as a sanity check. https://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/08/02/knight-capital-says-trading-mishap-cost-it-440-million/ https://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/08/02/knight-capital-says-... $10M/minute is an extreme case, but these things happen on a smaller scale all the time. I'm not saying this is the justification for coding interviews, just saying that it happens, and the ability to code something up quickly that also works correctly without having time to test it sometimes saves the day. I do think coding interviews that people are complaining about are good, and getting in shape to do well in them is good for you. You can tell it's good for you just by the amount of complaining people are doing :)
        learc83 7y ago
        >Sometimes there's no time to google What do you mean no time to Google? You're never going to be able to remember everything. Sure the ideal situation is that you're fixing a bug where you happen to know the exact syntax for every piece of every library you need. But in the very likely situation where you don't, of course you have time to google. >and the ability to code something up quickly that also works correctly without having time to test it sometimes saves the day. Often becuase the company has optimized the hiring process for people who are good at doing this vs. people who are good at designing maintainable, durable systems. If 30 minute, million dollar fixes is a frequent enough occurrence to make aptitude at them the primary or even a major factor in your hiring decision, you have done something horribly wrong. >I do think coding interviews that people are complaining about are good, and getting in shape to do well in them is good for you. Having hired people using many different techniques, I think that these types of interviews are only a bit better than random chance. They are a separate skill from 99% of daily programming work, and they are gameable. I also think they are nothing more than a fad caused by people cargo culting Google. Not a single other technical discipline widley uses this kind of stage performance based interview process. Not one. >and you want to be talking to someone while you're doing it, as a sanity check. That makes zero sense. Sure sometimes it helps to talk through a problem if you're working with someone who is also trying to solve the problem with you, and you might want to explain a fix after you solve the problem but before you push as a sanity check. But if it's a hard problem you can kick rocks if you expect me to explain what I'm thinking about while I'm concentrating on solving it--while you're watching over my shoulder, and are not actively engaged in helping me solve the problem. You're just slowing me down.
- reallydontask 7y ago
  I think the issue is that some people either don't remember the stress of an interview or just don't get that stressed so they can't empathise with people that do get horrendously stressed in an interview. I'm with you on this one, if working at a company induces interview levels of a stress daily, even regularly, then please don't hire me.
  - rrhyne 7y ago
    You may have had some bad whiteboard sessions. Ours are are a working session WITH the candidate not against the candidate.
    - learc83 7y ago
      I do this as well. But it's not a few bad whiteboard sessions. The vast majority of whiteboard interviews are strictly adversarial.
    - reallydontask 7y ago
      I've never had a whiteboard session, these type of interviews are not common in the non-start-up world in the UK. I just get really, really stressed in an interview. To make matters worse, it seems that I project this aura of calm and self assurance, or so I've been told by two of my interviewers after they hired me, so that I don't even get a concession for obvious nervousness.
gnusty_gnurc 7y ago
I agree that handling stress and managing emotions is a super valuable skill. But I'll hard-pass any interviews that try to stress-test my ability to maintain my emotions.
- cmonnow 7y ago
  you just mashed together the two phrases in an attempt to come up with a new meaning, but it falls short. handling stress = managing emotions = maintaining emotions in a stress-test
  - gnusty_gnurc 7y ago
    Yea that post didn't come out well. Either way it's not hard to see that I was trying to convey that any company that's going to put me through the wringer to see when I break down isn't worth my time or frustration. Be upfront about what you want or stop wasting my time and energy. It's like the scene at the end of Charlie and Chocolate Factory - or this video[1]. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHy06FMsezI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHy06FMsezI

seer 7y ago

In which case framing the test as “technical interview” would be a bit dishonest. You should name it “stress environment coping test”. But anyway you are right those moments do happen, but those times it’s usually “all hands on deck” kind of event where people are actively trying to help each other. Those are actually “fun” in a sense since you actually feel needed and encouraged rather than judged and scrutinized. And each time something like this happens, it usually means a failure of the company process as a whole. Can expect it from startups but definitely not from big companies. So if you honestly want to test that out for a candidate, it puts a huge red flag for him that said company is mismanaged. In effect you’re filtering for people that don’t know this - e.g. junior devs, or people who don’t care / tolerate it, so they won’t attempt to fix the mismanagement that allowed it to happen, the last thing you would want probably. Thinking about it you could even stage such a contrived stress test, and actually hire people that _do_ flip out as those would probably be the ones that care enough to fix longstanding issues.

esoterica 7y ago

You’re misattributing the cause of the stress. Any competitive job opening is intrinsically going to be stressful because there are there are X people interviewing for 1 position and you have to outperform the other (X-1) candidates. The interview format is irrelevant. The only “non stressful” way to do an interview is to hand out $500k/year job offers to every warm bodies that hands you their resume, no questions asked. Sorry, but that’s not going to happen.

Apocryphon 7y ago
I think you're getting at the core of the situation. Ultimately the interview is going to be stressful because it can only end in two ways. But I think there are ways to mitigate it, as suggested by some of the proposals in other comments. Another cause for stress is simply because the whole process is just so damned opaque. There's not just a power asymmetry between hirer and applicant, there's also an information asymmetry. At the end of the day, you don't know what the true criteria were used to judge you. You don't know if you hit a mark and was just passed over in favor of a better candidate, or if you bombed without realizing it, or one of the interviewers simply didn't like you. And at that point it's not simply losing out on the offer, it's losing out the time spent to get a rejection that blandly says that you weren't the right fit. And sometimes they don't even remember to reject you. Like the intrinsic stress of being at the mercy of an employer, it's part of the process that one just has to get used to. But one wonders if there's some better way. Perhaps pre-interview rubrics and post-interview feedback? Make applicants sign a waiver so they can't use it in a lawsuit. At least it'd be more transparent than the status quo.
- gnusty_gnurc 7y ago
  Very much agreed. Opacity is the larger issue for me. Especially considering the disproportionate investment I have to make as an interviewee. And it seems people readily admit the process yields marginally better than random results - so it's pretty puzzling to see people defend it like there's not much to complain about.
gnusty_gnurc 7y ago
I don't agree that interviews for "competitive" jobs are inherently stressful. Insofar as any interview is nerve-wracking - I agree that's unavoidable. The point of hiring is finding anyone that's capable of doing the job, not overseeing a gladiator deathmatch. I get the sense that no one is vulnerable enough to admit that hiring is a toss-up and almost intractable problem. Even more annoying is that experienced and competent workers in industry are usually going to be the people that believe they'd be good at judging candidates when there's little evidence that tech competence translates to hiring competence.