5 ms·

"Interviewing the interviewer" is an important strategy to help understand what you're getting into and helping to make sure the whole process remains two-way.

by edw519 16y ago

"Interviewing the interviewer" is an important strategy to help understand what you're getting into and helping to make sure the whole process remains two-way. But it's a fine line between making an assessment and appearing selfish. Many of OP's questions are problematic... “How many clients has the company added in the past year?” I would prefer trying to assess growth rates outside the interview. In many cases, you should be able to get an idea some other way. This question shows lack of initiative. And, in many cases, the interviewer may not even be permitted to answer it. “What has the employee turnover rate been over the past 24 months?” Too much focus on the negative. You don't like when they ask, "Why did you only stay with Company X for 3 months?" They'll feel the same way. “What’s the company’s policy on work/life balance?” You might as well say, "I intend to deliver 40 hours of my time for 40 hours of pay. If you need extra help, ask someone else. Big turnoff. “What kind of tools are provided to help me do my job?” Better: "What kinds of things do you need me to do to help the company achieve its goals. “In the first 60 to 90 days, what’s my first priority?” Actually, this is a great question. It can paint a good picture of your life and shows that you're ready to get to work. “Are employees required to sign a non-compete contract?” By asking this, you are identifying yourself as a problem. If someone asked me this question, the first thing I would think would be, "What is he up to and what is my risk?" For technology companies, just assume that the answer to this question is "Yes" and sign it. When interviewing someone else, I appreciate good questions. They show interest and possibility. But I get a bit concerned when too many questions are of the variety of "What's in it for me?" I think it's always a better idea to present yourself with President Kennedy's attitude: "Ask not what the company can do for you, ask what you can do for the company." Find a way to present yourself that way while still learning everything you need to know.

leftnode 16y ago
>> You might as well say, "I intend to deliver 40 hours of my time for 40 hours of pay. If you need extra help, ask someone else. Big turnoff. What's wrong with that? If I'm being hired on with a salary, that's my expectation. They can ask me to work extra, but they can also pay me to do that.
- artmageddon 16y ago
  >What's wrong with that? If I'm being hired on with a salary, that's my expectation. They can ask me to work extra, but they can also pay me to do that. I've been under the assumption that by going on salary, you pretty much forfeit your right to get paid more(forget bonuses for a moment) if you work more hours. Conversely, you will still get paid for 40 hours of work even if the week is slow and you only really needed to do, say, 36.
  - ams6110 16y ago
    Yes but there's a difference between occasional extra work to hit a tight deadline and routine 60 hour weeks. You will want to know what you're getting into.
    - artmageddon 16y ago
      In that case I definitely agree. I thought it was +/- 2 hours or something. Anything over, let's say 45-50 hours per week, is terrible in my opinion.
      - leftnode 16y ago
        Yeah, and there have been numerous studies showing that extended work weeks reduce productivity overall as well. I don't mind putting in an extra few hours to get a new feature out the door; I'm not going to work 60 hour weeks without additional compensation.
      - a5seo 16y ago
        There's no absolute good or bad when it comes to work expectations. Investment bankers work 60+ hrs/wk and make $200K a year and get massive bonuses. Most of them are mercenaries who will go wherever they can get the best comp, because what they're selling is the opportunity for the bank to generate profit from their ideas/network whatever. (Please try to read the previous without getting wound around the axle about financiers moral value.) So, to the extent that you view yourself in the business of "selling value I create," then a few things follow... 1) you'll want highly measurable criteria for success, 2) you'll want comp that is highly meritocratic, and 3) and hours worked don't matter much at all. Clearly, this post was geared to people who view themselves as being in the business of selling their time, not their value.
Timothee 16y ago
The point of the article is to counter the general imbalance in the company/interviewee relationship by making sure the interviewee interviews the company back. Your rebuttal however feels very much from the company's perspective. If the company squirms or is concerned because they're asked questions like this, I think it's actually worrying. Companies will ask why you stayed at a company for a short period of time. Asking about tools is a good way to evaluate how easy it would be to get things done: if a company won't spend an extra $2k on a new computer of your choice, it's not a good sign. Asking about work/life balance is the same thing: you won't get a definite answer but you should get a glimpse of if you'll be asked to travel across the country at the last minute on your daughter's birthday or not. In the end, you won't get completely truthful answers but the way they are answered will give you hints. (and to be fair, interviewees also embellish their answers) Asking "what's in it for me?" seems a fair question. Generally, the feeling is that the risk is on the company's part, but as an employee you might be wasting your time, your opportunities and later you'll have to explain why you worked for only three months at a company.
trevelyan 16y ago
> For technology companies, just assume that the answer to this question is "Yes" and sign it. No no no no... I agree with the general tone of your post Edward, but strongly disagree with this. Anyone working in a field they have any possibility of working in again should never sign something that will complicate that. And the same with ownership of IP developed on personal time. Once a company has made the decision to hire you they are invested in you. If you can't get them to bend on amending the contract don't sign it. Starting your own company is stressful enough without the possibility for an ex-employer to take legal action. Add that to the fact that people are much less likely to start a business in a field totally unrelated to what they currently do, and you have something that is entrepreneurial suicide.
- ams6110 16y ago
  A non-compete is reasonable but it should also have a reasonable term... e.g. while employed, and perhaps for a period of 2 years after leaving. That said, overly restrictive non-competes tend to be unenforceable, but I agree you don't want the hassle of a legal fight even if you ultimately prevail.
  - ultrasaurus 16y ago
    The last one of those I was asked to sign was laughably broad (the specific example I asked, was "What if I wrote a children's book" and yes, that would be covered). I asked to take it to my lawyer to review, and they forgot to ever ask for it again.
  - mgkimsal 16y ago
    2 years?! 1 is excessive in my view. Now, if I was paid handsomely for those 2 years, fine. But to not pay me and say I can't go work at other competitors - that's too much to ask for 2 years. I've had a couple 6 month non-competes - that's liveable. 1 year - I'd probably do it. 2 years? I doubt I'd sign.
    - semanticist 16y ago
      As a call centre drone I was required to sign a non-compete for Nokia saying that I wouldn't work for any other mobile phone manufacturer for a period of three years. In practice I no one cared what their phone goons did after they left, but I suspect it was applied to everyone they hired, either directly or through outsourcing (like I was). In fact, after the outsourcer lost the contract several of the people I worked with immediately went to do phone support for Samsung or Motorola (all three were in the same building).
metageek 16y ago
>Many of OP's questions are problematic They're important data, though. Probably best to wait until you've got an offer in hand.
- mattm 16y ago
  I don't know why your comment was downvoted. This is good advice. The candidate has the most power in the hiring process between the moment they have received an offer and before they have given a decision. The company at that point has invested a lot of time and money into the process and you are their number 1 choice. This would be the best time to ask any "iffy" questions or to push back on any of the points they brought up which you had issues with.
T-R 16y ago
Your objection to these questions is fair, but what suggestions would you offer for finding this kind of information? I ask because these questions all would have thrown up a red flag at my previous company, where within 2 months I found myself trying to run a very specific old version of Eclipse (so they wouldn't have to pay for the non-free version of a plugin) on a 10 year old desktop (with a keyboard and mouse I bought myself), on completely unreasonable schedules, embarrassed to leave before 10pm, with no programmers left that I could ask any questions, and at least mildly concerned about whether the non-compete agreement would prevent me from taking another job in Japan. Being terrible at interviews as I am, I failed to ask enough questions for fear of leaving the kind of bad impression you describe, since I saw myself as having few alternatives as a fresh grad in a bad economy, and convinced myself that the offer was a pretty good deal. There must be a way to at least get some indication that a company isn't going to make me beg for scraps without coming off as unhireable.
Killah911 16y ago
I think this review is very valuable. The key is to always look at it from the other persons point of view as well. I like when an interviewee asks questions. But there needs to be forethought and finnesse in the interaction. Your questions are very telling of you, as are the questions the interviewer asks you, which can tell you a lot about them. So, be sure to evaluate what your questions are "telling" this potential employer about you. I'd rather get an offer an decline than not get an offer at all. You can always find out quite a bit about companies just by googling them.
mattm 16y ago
I enjoy most of your comments on HN but I find this one extremely biased and giving advice which benefits the advisor rather than the advisee. > You don't like when they ask, "Why did you only stay with Company X for 3 months?" They'll feel the same way. Actually I do like it when they ask. It gives me a chance to explain my position. Heaven forbid somebody's feelings get hurt. > This question shows lack of initiative How does a question about the company's business show lack of initiative? It shows the candidate is at least thinking about the bigger picture and future. > just assume that the answer to this question is "Yes" and sign it. Honestly, I cannot believe you are saying this seriously. Never, never, never just sign something. >Ask not what the company can do for you, ask what you can do for the company. When you are interviewing someone, are you really following your own advice and thinking "What can I do for this candidate?" while ignoring your own company? I sincerely doubt it. The whole reason you are looking to hire is to get a ROI on the person. I say all these as someone who has asked tough questions of my interview, been hired and then been told "we hired you because we liked the questions you asked of us during the interview."

by edw519 16y ago

leftnode 16y ago

>> You might as well say, "I intend to deliver 40 hours of my time for 40 hours of pay. If you need extra help, ask someone else. Big turnoff. What's wrong with that? If I'm being hired on with a salary, that's my expectation. They can ask me to work extra, but they can also pay me to do that.

artmageddon 16y ago
>What's wrong with that? If I'm being hired on with a salary, that's my expectation. They can ask me to work extra, but they can also pay me to do that. I've been under the assumption that by going on salary, you pretty much forfeit your right to get paid more(forget bonuses for a moment) if you work more hours. Conversely, you will still get paid for 40 hours of work even if the week is slow and you only really needed to do, say, 36.
- ams6110 16y ago
  Yes but there's a difference between occasional extra work to hit a tight deadline and routine 60 hour weeks. You will want to know what you're getting into.
  - artmageddon 16y ago
    In that case I definitely agree. I thought it was +/- 2 hours or something. Anything over, let's say 45-50 hours per week, is terrible in my opinion.
    - leftnode 16y ago
      Yeah, and there have been numerous studies showing that extended work weeks reduce productivity overall as well. I don't mind putting in an extra few hours to get a new feature out the door; I'm not going to work 60 hour weeks without additional compensation.
    - a5seo 16y ago
      There's no absolute good or bad when it comes to work expectations. Investment bankers work 60+ hrs/wk and make $200K a year and get massive bonuses. Most of them are mercenaries who will go wherever they can get the best comp, because what they're selling is the opportunity for the bank to generate profit from their ideas/network whatever. (Please try to read the previous without getting wound around the axle about financiers moral value.) So, to the extent that you view yourself in the business of "selling value I create," then a few things follow... 1) you'll want highly measurable criteria for success, 2) you'll want comp that is highly meritocratic, and 3) and hours worked don't matter much at all. Clearly, this post was geared to people who view themselves as being in the business of selling their time, not their value.

Timothee 16y ago

The point of the article is to counter the general imbalance in the company/interviewee relationship by making sure the interviewee interviews the company back. Your rebuttal however feels very much from the company's perspective. If the company squirms or is concerned because they're asked questions like this, I think it's actually worrying. Companies will ask why you stayed at a company for a short period of time. Asking about tools is a good way to evaluate how easy it would be to get things done: if a company won't spend an extra $2k on a new computer of your choice, it's not a good sign. Asking about work/life balance is the same thing: you won't get a definite answer but you should get a glimpse of if you'll be asked to travel across the country at the last minute on your daughter's birthday or not. In the end, you won't get completely truthful answers but the way they are answered will give you hints. (and to be fair, interviewees also embellish their answers) Asking "what's in it for me?" seems a fair question. Generally, the feeling is that the risk is on the company's part, but as an employee you might be wasting your time, your opportunities and later you'll have to explain why you worked for only three months at a company.

trevelyan 16y ago

> For technology companies, just assume that the answer to this question is "Yes" and sign it. No no no no... I agree with the general tone of your post Edward, but strongly disagree with this. Anyone working in a field they have any possibility of working in again should never sign something that will complicate that. And the same with ownership of IP developed on personal time. Once a company has made the decision to hire you they are invested in you. If you can't get them to bend on amending the contract don't sign it. Starting your own company is stressful enough without the possibility for an ex-employer to take legal action. Add that to the fact that people are much less likely to start a business in a field totally unrelated to what they currently do, and you have something that is entrepreneurial suicide.

ams6110 16y ago
A non-compete is reasonable but it should also have a reasonable term... e.g. while employed, and perhaps for a period of 2 years after leaving. That said, overly restrictive non-competes tend to be unenforceable, but I agree you don't want the hassle of a legal fight even if you ultimately prevail.
- ultrasaurus 16y ago
  The last one of those I was asked to sign was laughably broad (the specific example I asked, was "What if I wrote a children's book" and yes, that would be covered). I asked to take it to my lawyer to review, and they forgot to ever ask for it again.
- mgkimsal 16y ago
  2 years?! 1 is excessive in my view. Now, if I was paid handsomely for those 2 years, fine. But to not pay me and say I can't go work at other competitors - that's too much to ask for 2 years. I've had a couple 6 month non-competes - that's liveable. 1 year - I'd probably do it. 2 years? I doubt I'd sign.
  - semanticist 16y ago
    As a call centre drone I was required to sign a non-compete for Nokia saying that I wouldn't work for any other mobile phone manufacturer for a period of three years. In practice I no one cared what their phone goons did after they left, but I suspect it was applied to everyone they hired, either directly or through outsourcing (like I was). In fact, after the outsourcer lost the contract several of the people I worked with immediately went to do phone support for Samsung or Motorola (all three were in the same building).

metageek 16y ago

>Many of OP's questions are problematic They're important data, though. Probably best to wait until you've got an offer in hand.

mattm 16y ago
I don't know why your comment was downvoted. This is good advice. The candidate has the most power in the hiring process between the moment they have received an offer and before they have given a decision. The company at that point has invested a lot of time and money into the process and you are their number 1 choice. This would be the best time to ask any "iffy" questions or to push back on any of the points they brought up which you had issues with.

T-R 16y ago

Your objection to these questions is fair, but what suggestions would you offer for finding this kind of information? I ask because these questions all would have thrown up a red flag at my previous company, where within 2 months I found myself trying to run a very specific old version of Eclipse (so they wouldn't have to pay for the non-free version of a plugin) on a 10 year old desktop (with a keyboard and mouse I bought myself), on completely unreasonable schedules, embarrassed to leave before 10pm, with no programmers left that I could ask any questions, and at least mildly concerned about whether the non-compete agreement would prevent me from taking another job in Japan. Being terrible at interviews as I am, I failed to ask enough questions for fear of leaving the kind of bad impression you describe, since I saw myself as having few alternatives as a fresh grad in a bad economy, and convinced myself that the offer was a pretty good deal. There must be a way to at least get some indication that a company isn't going to make me beg for scraps without coming off as unhireable.

Killah911 16y ago

I think this review is very valuable. The key is to always look at it from the other persons point of view as well. I like when an interviewee asks questions. But there needs to be forethought and finnesse in the interaction. Your questions are very telling of you, as are the questions the interviewer asks you, which can tell you a lot about them. So, be sure to evaluate what your questions are "telling" this potential employer about you. I'd rather get an offer an decline than not get an offer at all. You can always find out quite a bit about companies just by googling them.

mattm 16y ago

I enjoy most of your comments on HN but I find this one extremely biased and giving advice which benefits the advisor rather than the advisee. > You don't like when they ask, "Why did you only stay with Company X for 3 months?" They'll feel the same way. Actually I do like it when they ask. It gives me a chance to explain my position. Heaven forbid somebody's feelings get hurt. > This question shows lack of initiative How does a question about the company's business show lack of initiative? It shows the candidate is at least thinking about the bigger picture and future. > just assume that the answer to this question is "Yes" and sign it. Honestly, I cannot believe you are saying this seriously. Never, never, never just sign something. >Ask not what the company can do for you, ask what you can do for the company. When you are interviewing someone, are you really following your own advice and thinking "What can I do for this candidate?" while ignoring your own company? I sincerely doubt it. The whole reason you are looking to hire is to get a ROI on the person. I say all these as someone who has asked tough questions of my interview, been hired and then been told "we hired you because we liked the questions you asked of us during the interview."