4 ms·

Which is why I open my conversational interviews with, "There's an emergency, sales promised a customer a to-do list app yesterday. It's getting shipped out and

Which is why I open my conversational interviews with, "There's an emergency, sales promised a customer a to-do list app yesterday. It's getting shipped out and forgotten, you're doing it on your own, only thing that matters is it's done fast. What do you use?". And then of course I spring the, "Okay, now it's becoming a flagship product. How do you onboard co-workers? How do you pivot to ongoing maintenance? What problems do you anticipate scaling it out?". But it's always important to have a tool in your toolbox to hack something together in an afternoon, even if it's just to prove a point.

ric2b 5y ago
That would give me a bad impression as a candidate. It's like you're aware of the issue (sales doesn't give two shits about the capacity of the engineering team) but you want someone that is good at wasting a lot of time efficiently instead of improving communication with the sales team.
- solipsism 5y ago
  And then as a hiring manager I get the impression that this candidate doesn't understand hypotheticals, which is a big red flag. Happily, we will come to mutual agreement on whether you proceed.
  - scottLobster 5y ago
    As a candidate I by definition know practically nothing about your company and how it operates internally save for maybe some glassdoor reviews, and you're supposed to be judging how I would perform as a part of said company, same way I'm judging whether the position is worth my time or not. If all your hypotheticals revolve around cleaning up the mess of flagrantly incompetent coworkers/leadership I'm going to get the impression that that's what I'm expected to do all the time. You could get the same information with different hypotheticals, so there's no point in making your company sound like a horrible place to work. Happily, we would come to a mutual decision that I should produce profits for someone else. It sounds like you're one of those managers who wants supplicants, not applicants. Good luck with that.
    - solipsism 5y ago
      I wouldn't hire someone without telling them plenty about where they will work. You don't have to guess what the workplace is like by decoding my questions. You are certainly welcome to, but the obvious danger is that you will get something wrong. A mature person would just ask, and that's the type of person I would want to hire. It sounds like you're one of those managers who wants supplicants, not applicants. Absolutely not. I want human beings with whom I can have a good relationship with, based in communication. I definitely don't want to hire a robot who is making important assumptions based on questionable (and totally wrong) heuristics, and Not bothering to ask simple questions. So yeah, someone applying a weird algorithm to the questions I'm asking them isn't going to be a good fit.
scottLobster 5y ago
As a candidate that would be a hell of a red flag, particularly as an opener. After answering I would definitely follow up with "are situations like those an expected part of my day-to-day?" and minutely examine your response. Even if the rest of the interview went swimmingly that opener would give me pause after the fact. That question translates to me as "your sister teams/leadership/communication infrastructure are completely incompetent/lacking and you're on the spot to pull an 18 hour shift to clean up their mess. What do you do?" Sure occasional unforeseen emergencies/breakdowns in communication are expected even at the best of companies, but I'd replace it with a hypothetical that makes the company sound fundamentally competent. Perhaps something like "The company has promised the customer a To-Do List App, however automated testing failed to catch a mission-critical edge-case. This comes to light the day before it's supposed to be delivered. The flaw is so fundamental that the app will have to be re-written. Everyone else is handling other parts of the delivery, so you're on the spot to do it on your own. The only thing that matters is that it's done fast. What do you use?"
- paledot 5y ago
  I'd make a note of that response and count it in your favour. But if you get sidetracked enough that you never end up answering the question, that's also not a good sign. IMO your counterexample is wildly implausible, and is likely to sidetrack the candidate. "Is nothing salvageable? What was the flaw? What automated testing? Do I have to use that testing in my alternative fix? How does that reflect on the rest of my tech stack choice?"
  - scottLobster 5y ago
    True, just came up with it off the top of my head. I suppose it is possible to be too detailed in such questions. Point being it at least makes it sound like the company was doing the right things and got hit out of left field, vs stepping in a pile of their own making and making you responsible for fixing it. Perhaps a more innocent miscommunication like the customer failed to clearly communicate requirements, and it was just discovered in an email conversation that they were expecting and as-of-yet un-implemented To-Do List App in the current release, which is shipping tomorrow/this week/etc. I've experienced situations like that before, not sure how applicable it is to your business.

ric2b 5y ago

That would give me a bad impression as a candidate. It's like you're aware of the issue (sales doesn't give two shits about the capacity of the engineering team) but you want someone that is good at wasting a lot of time efficiently instead of improving communication with the sales team.

solipsism 5y ago
And then as a hiring manager I get the impression that this candidate doesn't understand hypotheticals, which is a big red flag. Happily, we will come to mutual agreement on whether you proceed.
- scottLobster 5y ago
  As a candidate I by definition know practically nothing about your company and how it operates internally save for maybe some glassdoor reviews, and you're supposed to be judging how I would perform as a part of said company, same way I'm judging whether the position is worth my time or not. If all your hypotheticals revolve around cleaning up the mess of flagrantly incompetent coworkers/leadership I'm going to get the impression that that's what I'm expected to do all the time. You could get the same information with different hypotheticals, so there's no point in making your company sound like a horrible place to work. Happily, we would come to a mutual decision that I should produce profits for someone else. It sounds like you're one of those managers who wants supplicants, not applicants. Good luck with that.
  - solipsism 5y ago
    I wouldn't hire someone without telling them plenty about where they will work. You don't have to guess what the workplace is like by decoding my questions. You are certainly welcome to, but the obvious danger is that you will get something wrong. A mature person would just ask, and that's the type of person I would want to hire. It sounds like you're one of those managers who wants supplicants, not applicants. Absolutely not. I want human beings with whom I can have a good relationship with, based in communication. I definitely don't want to hire a robot who is making important assumptions based on questionable (and totally wrong) heuristics, and Not bothering to ask simple questions. So yeah, someone applying a weird algorithm to the questions I'm asking them isn't going to be a good fit.

scottLobster 5y ago

As a candidate that would be a hell of a red flag, particularly as an opener. After answering I would definitely follow up with "are situations like those an expected part of my day-to-day?" and minutely examine your response. Even if the rest of the interview went swimmingly that opener would give me pause after the fact. That question translates to me as "your sister teams/leadership/communication infrastructure are completely incompetent/lacking and you're on the spot to pull an 18 hour shift to clean up their mess. What do you do?" Sure occasional unforeseen emergencies/breakdowns in communication are expected even at the best of companies, but I'd replace it with a hypothetical that makes the company sound fundamentally competent. Perhaps something like "The company has promised the customer a To-Do List App, however automated testing failed to catch a mission-critical edge-case. This comes to light the day before it's supposed to be delivered. The flaw is so fundamental that the app will have to be re-written. Everyone else is handling other parts of the delivery, so you're on the spot to do it on your own. The only thing that matters is that it's done fast. What do you use?"

paledot 5y ago
I'd make a note of that response and count it in your favour. But if you get sidetracked enough that you never end up answering the question, that's also not a good sign. IMO your counterexample is wildly implausible, and is likely to sidetrack the candidate. "Is nothing salvageable? What was the flaw? What automated testing? Do I have to use that testing in my alternative fix? How does that reflect on the rest of my tech stack choice?"
- scottLobster 5y ago
  True, just came up with it off the top of my head. I suppose it is possible to be too detailed in such questions. Point being it at least makes it sound like the company was doing the right things and got hit out of left field, vs stepping in a pile of their own making and making you responsible for fixing it. Perhaps a more innocent miscommunication like the customer failed to clearly communicate requirements, and it was just discovered in an email conversation that they were expecting and as-of-yet un-implemented To-Do List App in the current release, which is shipping tomorrow/this week/etc. I've experienced situations like that before, not sure how applicable it is to your business.