3 ms·

> you should not put much stock in the interview process. But there is a sense in which it is very impolite to say so. The interview processes are still very

> you should not put much stock in the interview process. But there is a sense in which it is very impolite to say so. The interview processes are still very fair compared to things like "performance" reviews and company "levels". People often pretend these types of internal processes are indicators of actual competence when they are usually just based on things like nepotism and corruption. At least these algorithm interviews can successfully weed out people who can't write basic code. I can't say the same for promotion processes.

donw 6y ago
That depends entirely on the company. "Nepotism and corruption" is a very odd claim. Does this mean that only family members and friends of managers get promoted? Or that you have to bribe folks in the company to advance? What do you actually mean? What I would say is that most companies haven't really put much thought into building career ladders for their people. Or into defining roles that provide enough breadth to capture a diverse skillset, enough autonomy to get the job done, and enough in the way of pragmatic constraints to scope the role. Algorithms interviews only tell me that somebody can pass an algorithms interview -- one in which the solution space is very narrow, and there are a few correct answers. In real-world engineering, this is very rarely the case. There are always trade-offs to make. Good engineers know how to do things the cheap way now, and pragmatically invest more as we need to -- because they follow practices focused on, second only to delivering value, making the code easy to change.
- amznthrowaway5 6y ago
  > Does this mean that only family members and friends of managers get promoted? Or that you have to bribe folks in the company to advance? What do you actually mean? In many cases I've seen people being promoted due to being close friends with the managers while contributing little to nothing of value. Also dishonestly claiming credit for others work is a great way to advance. Donald trump types get promoted. > What I would say is that most companies haven't really put much thought into building career ladders for their people. These career ladder guidelines often make the problem worse. They allow poor engineers to get away with avoiding real work in favor of soft "cross-team impact". Often the lower level engineers working on the difficult technical problems are making the real contributions. Good engineers should be focused on solving the most difficult problems, whether cross-team or not. They should not be focused on gaming silly HR guidelines, people who take these guidelines seriously make the worst engineers. > Algorithms interviews only tell me that somebody can pass an algorithms interview -- one in which the solution space is very narrow, and there are a few correct answers. > In real-world engineering, this is very rarely the case. I don't agree. Psychometrics shows general cognitive ability is very important, and algorithms interviews to an extent seem like a decent test of it. Coming up with difficult solutions isn't happening without proper grasp of the basics and strong general cognitive ability.
  - sanderjd 6y ago
    From reading this comment, I think it is possible that you undervalue non-coding work. That is, I think it seems like you don't see as much value in it as some companies you've worked for do. There isn't really an objective measure to say whether you're more right or whether those companies are, but it's definitely the case that career trajectories are driven by what companies value rather than what lower level engineers value. But take my thoughts in this with a grain of salt: my bias is toward believing that most engineers place way too much value on coding work and not nearly enough on the (in my opinion) harder work of figuring out how to successfully execute an ambiguously defined project.
alexashka 6y ago
It's nepotism and corruption when you are not part of the club, sure. It is like average looking girls calling hot chicks 'bitches'. Just because you weren't born beautiful, doesn't mean somebody else is a 'bitch', just means you wish you had what they've got :)

donw 6y ago

That depends entirely on the company. "Nepotism and corruption" is a very odd claim. Does this mean that only family members and friends of managers get promoted? Or that you have to bribe folks in the company to advance? What do you actually mean? What I would say is that most companies haven't really put much thought into building career ladders for their people. Or into defining roles that provide enough breadth to capture a diverse skillset, enough autonomy to get the job done, and enough in the way of pragmatic constraints to scope the role. Algorithms interviews only tell me that somebody can pass an algorithms interview -- one in which the solution space is very narrow, and there are a few correct answers. In real-world engineering, this is very rarely the case. There are always trade-offs to make. Good engineers know how to do things the cheap way now, and pragmatically invest more as we need to -- because they follow practices focused on, second only to delivering value, making the code easy to change.

amznthrowaway5 6y ago
> Does this mean that only family members and friends of managers get promoted? Or that you have to bribe folks in the company to advance? What do you actually mean? In many cases I've seen people being promoted due to being close friends with the managers while contributing little to nothing of value. Also dishonestly claiming credit for others work is a great way to advance. Donald trump types get promoted. > What I would say is that most companies haven't really put much thought into building career ladders for their people. These career ladder guidelines often make the problem worse. They allow poor engineers to get away with avoiding real work in favor of soft "cross-team impact". Often the lower level engineers working on the difficult technical problems are making the real contributions. Good engineers should be focused on solving the most difficult problems, whether cross-team or not. They should not be focused on gaming silly HR guidelines, people who take these guidelines seriously make the worst engineers. > Algorithms interviews only tell me that somebody can pass an algorithms interview -- one in which the solution space is very narrow, and there are a few correct answers. > In real-world engineering, this is very rarely the case. I don't agree. Psychometrics shows general cognitive ability is very important, and algorithms interviews to an extent seem like a decent test of it. Coming up with difficult solutions isn't happening without proper grasp of the basics and strong general cognitive ability.
- sanderjd 6y ago
  From reading this comment, I think it is possible that you undervalue non-coding work. That is, I think it seems like you don't see as much value in it as some companies you've worked for do. There isn't really an objective measure to say whether you're more right or whether those companies are, but it's definitely the case that career trajectories are driven by what companies value rather than what lower level engineers value. But take my thoughts in this with a grain of salt: my bias is toward believing that most engineers place way too much value on coding work and not nearly enough on the (in my opinion) harder work of figuring out how to successfully execute an ambiguously defined project.

alexashka 6y ago

It's nepotism and corruption when you are not part of the club, sure. It is like average looking girls calling hot chicks 'bitches'. Just because you weren't born beautiful, doesn't mean somebody else is a 'bitch', just means you wish you had what they've got :)