3 ms·
> what the hell do they need you for, they’ve already got a team that can do everything you could bring to the table. If that's the case, then why are they con
by alxlaz 7y ago
> what the hell do they need you for, they’ve already got a team that can do everything you could bring to the table.
If that's the case, then why are they conducting an interview in the first place?
I guess an argument can be made that it's counterproductive to ask "aggressive" questions if you want to be hired. But then again, candidates will likely be asked "why" they did something dozens of times in a whiteboard interview. If someone can't take 10% of the pressure they expose their candidates to, maybe they shouldn't be doing interviews in the first place.
As far as I'm concerned, I'm happy to answer any "why" question that I'm in a position to answer, and I always have, whenever a candidate has asked me one. I'm wary about taking the mere act of asking a question as a good sign (or a bad one) in the age of "Cracking to Coding Interview" and whatnot but it's the kind of question that leads to useful discussion.
Sure, we weren't right about a lot of choices we made, and sometimes, in hindsight, they were flat out indefensible, and we had to deal with the consequences. That's part of software development everywhere.
If they ask that because their bar is too high and they don't want to join a team that makes more than N wrong choices a year, fine, it's their bar, they get to set it wherever they like.
If they ask that just because they think questioning accepted practice is a good idea, that's actually great. Lots of companies end up making one bad mistake after another just because no one stops to ask why. And lots of narcissistic team leads and managers don't want that kind of attitude on their teams -- if that leads to not being hired, that's a bullet dodged, not a wasted opportunity.
On the other hand a question like this is a great opportunity to show them that we're good at both leveraging our assets and at owning up to our mistakes. That's definitely a quality I'd be looking for in a prospective team.
Edit: oh yeah, maybe some more general context is appropriate here.
One thing that took me a while to learn is that not every interview you don't ace is a failure. I don't mean that in some personal development hoodoo way, like the way to success is riddled with failures or whatever. I mean, literally, that there are interviews which you don't ace, and that's a good thing, because if you'd aced it, you would have hated working there, or it would have been really bad for your career, or both.
It's one thing if you don't get hired because you lack the knowledge and skills -- okay, you can work on that and try again later. But if you get passed because you asked the wrong question (and that question wasn't offensive or anything, obviously), or because you did not know that specific thing that a lead dev is really proud about knowing, that's a blessing in disguise.
- SpicyLemonZest 7y agoAt most companies, technical interviewers are conducting an interview because they've been told to. I try my hardest not to let it affect my attitude, but the bottom line is, I wouldn't conduct any interviews if it weren't expected of me.
- alxlaz 7y agoNo no, I mean, if they’ve already got a team that can do everything you could bring to the table, why have an opening in the first place? Why try to hire someone? (and, therefore, why is someone sitting in a room being interviewed in the first place :-) ?) The fact that there's a job ad out there means there's a legitimate need for somebody on that team. It's a candidate's responsibility to show they're the right person just as much as it's the company's responsibility to show that being on that team is worth putting effort into.
- jameshart 7y agoBe open to the possibility that a job could be advertised for which you are not the perfect candidate.
- alxlaz 7y agoMaybe I didn't get what you were saying? > If your requirements for joining a tech org are that you expect them to have made all the same decisions you would have made if you were in their shoes, without error, then a) your bar might be a little high and b) what the hell do they need you for, they’ve already got a team that can do everything you could bring to the table. Maybe they have a team that can do that, maybe they don't. Figuring that out is (allegedly :-) ) why the interview is being conducted, and it's definitely not something that can be gauged based on nothing but whether you ask a "why" question or not.
- jameshart 7y agoOh, to be clear asking ‘why’ questions of candidates is also an interviewing mistake. Adversarial questions are not good for communication in general. I am literally saying that the mistake here is asking questions that use the word ‘why?’ (Or, yes, weasel-wordy synonyms like ‘how come’ or ‘what’s the thinking behind’ or ‘help me understand what led to..’) These are all fundamentally cross-examination type questions, that ask someone to justify their judgement. Most people believe they have good judgement. When you question it, they close up. Or they second guess themselves, which means you’ve undermined them and that changes the dynamic between you. To learn something from an person the shortest path is not always to just come right out and ask them about it. So someone tells you they chose to use redux to solve a problem. Your first thought might be ‘aha! I could learn a lot about what they value and prioritize if I knew why they chose redux!’ And that’s a reasonable thing to want to know. But if you ask ‘why did you pick redux?’ you throw down a gauntlet that might stop you from really finding out. Instead, try coming in from the other side: ‘tell me more about the context for that project. What constraints were you under, in terms of time, preexisting code, dependencies, team size? What did you know about the problem space going in? Was this when you were learning react or already familiar?’ And take the conversation from there.