9 ms·

Ah Amazon... 14 interviews, an additional 5 hour technical test, spanning a total of 3+ months. Only to be informed at the end that I was too technical for the

by buro9 5y ago

Ah Amazon... 14 interviews, an additional 5 hour technical test, spanning a total of 3+ months. Only to be informed at the end that I was too technical for the role they had in mind but they were offering me a Senior Principal SDE role instead. By the time we got to the end of the process I'd already concluded that the hiring process was a reflection of their internal decision making and that this was not a company (or department) I wanted to work for. Then I was hired elsewhere and I saw something similar happen to a candidate and realised that this was truly an indication of the indecision. We had lots of roles, just none shaped in a way that fitted the person, and what we should've done is reject the person but on that occasion we hired and it was a terrible decision. They were a good person and very capable, but not a fit for the role finally offered. I had the sense that if I had accepted the Amazon role that would've been true for me too. An interview process of more than 3-4 defined steps that takes longer than a month to schedule, is a bad sign. Top tip for candidates: Ask what the process is, if they cannot conclusively tell you then double down on interviewing at a company that can.

TheHypnotist 5y ago
As i mentioned in another post, don't forget to work in those LP's otherwise you get 0 Bezos points and your experience is worthless. Edit: Meant LP's. Leadership Principles.
- quietbritishjim 5y ago
  What's GP? Gaussian process? General practitioner? Or, most commonly on HN, grandparent [post]? Or maybe the whole point of using that abbreviation is to exclude those outside Amazon?
  - fridif 5y ago
    I think he means LPs, Leadership Principles
    - TheHypnotist 5y ago
      Right - I meant LP's, for some reason they are "Guiding Principles" in my head this morning.
      - quietbritishjim 5y ago
        If you had said LPs instead, I still wouldn't have known what you meant.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - bombadilo 5y ago
    This is one thing that really pisses me off about hacker news. The excessive use of abbreviations only hinders communication, it doesn't improve it.
    - fridif 5y ago
      LMGTFY (which you can Google if you don't know what it maps to) exists for a reason
amznbyebyebye 5y ago
Sr principal is like L8 so you’re easily taking close to 1M/year salary.. 14 interviews is still a bit much, but you’re basically one step away from distinguished engineer which is pretty much end of the road for the engineering track at amazon
- buro9 5y ago
  I can't say on the money front I didn't kick myself after I had declined, and the interviewing was at a very high level. At the time I was focused on finding a role that had my requirements for high job satisfaction and money wasn't an important part of that (I'm not rich, but money wasn't important then and isn't now, we only have one life to live).
- majani 5y ago
  If he has the skills to get such offers, then he's in a power position with employers, which explains his demeanor towards them
  - amznbyebyebye 5y ago
    Definitely, if you’re being recruited for L8, thats a level of distinction all on its own..
    - buro9 5y ago
      Hard to know what to make of these comments. I've known a lot of far better engineers than I am. We've all been in this game a long time. Titles, companies and package aren't the most important thing to any of them. I'm sure most will look back and even though our titles and roles appear to have changed it feels like we still do much the same as we always did, just at a different scope and what's important is whether the work is engaging, there's as little politics as possible, and you're setup for success.
d0gsg0w00f 5y ago
I honestly think this is a product of large corporations being essentially incapable of firing bad resources. Companies are terrified of litigation and bad PR so the only control mechanism is the interview process.
- buro9 5y ago
  I do not disagree. The more people who interview, the more average the candidate has to be to succeed. For all the talk of "hire fast, fire fast" the reality is that most companies do not know how to evaluate someone within the probation time period in which they could let go of someone with ease (usually under 60 days) and after that they then fear doing so even when it's miserable for both the person (candidate) and team involved. I hire a lot, and some of my thoughts on the process: 1. The interview process should be short and sweet. 3 steps is enough, if you can't make a decision in 3 steps then the decision is to decline. 2. The hiring manager should be the first to interview. We have a good idea of what we're looking for in a team and what other roles other managers have open, we can speak of most teams and can spare both the candidate and ICs from interviews that cannot realistically result in a hire. Likewise, we can increase the chance of a successful hire by having the people from the team the candidate would be joining conduct the interview. 3. Some of the best candidates get love/hate feedback, a candidate who consistently gets "hire" feedback is seldom as good as those who get "strong hire" mixed with "no hire" feedback. The consistent "hire" usually typifies an "on the fence but don't want to take responsibility for declining so will wave through"... opinions should be stronger, interviewers should be excited for people - challenge whether a consistent stream of "hire" feedback actually means "hire". All that said, always listen to "strong no hire" when it turns up. 4. To increase diversity you only need to interview people who aren't already over-represented in your org... you will hire those people at exactly the same rate as you hire everyone else. If you don't have these people in your pipeline you have a sourcing or branding/reputation problem so focus on those things. If you do have those people and aren't hiring at the same rate, you have a bias problem and should root it out with urgency. 5. Degrees are not a signal, so absence of a degree is not a signal. 6. Don't hire based on what someone has done as it only reflects what their employers asked them to do, instead hire on what they can potentially do - if it lines up with what you want to achieve it's a win-win. Most of the above can be summed up as: Have an opinion and care about what you're doing.

by buro9 5y ago

TheHypnotist 5y ago

As i mentioned in another post, don't forget to work in those LP's otherwise you get 0 Bezos points and your experience is worthless. Edit: Meant LP's. Leadership Principles.

quietbritishjim 5y ago
What's GP? Gaussian process? General practitioner? Or, most commonly on HN, grandparent [post]? Or maybe the whole point of using that abbreviation is to exclude those outside Amazon?
- fridif 5y ago
  I think he means LPs, Leadership Principles
  - TheHypnotist 5y ago
    Right - I meant LP's, for some reason they are "Guiding Principles" in my head this morning.
    - quietbritishjim 5y ago
      If you had said LPs instead, I still wouldn't have known what you meant.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- bombadilo 5y ago
  This is one thing that really pisses me off about hacker news. The excessive use of abbreviations only hinders communication, it doesn't improve it.
  - fridif 5y ago
    LMGTFY (which you can Google if you don't know what it maps to) exists for a reason

amznbyebyebye 5y ago

Sr principal is like L8 so you’re easily taking close to 1M/year salary.. 14 interviews is still a bit much, but you’re basically one step away from distinguished engineer which is pretty much end of the road for the engineering track at amazon

buro9 5y ago
I can't say on the money front I didn't kick myself after I had declined, and the interviewing was at a very high level. At the time I was focused on finding a role that had my requirements for high job satisfaction and money wasn't an important part of that (I'm not rich, but money wasn't important then and isn't now, we only have one life to live).
majani 5y ago
If he has the skills to get such offers, then he's in a power position with employers, which explains his demeanor towards them
- amznbyebyebye 5y ago
  Definitely, if you’re being recruited for L8, thats a level of distinction all on its own..
  - buro9 5y ago
    Hard to know what to make of these comments. I've known a lot of far better engineers than I am. We've all been in this game a long time. Titles, companies and package aren't the most important thing to any of them. I'm sure most will look back and even though our titles and roles appear to have changed it feels like we still do much the same as we always did, just at a different scope and what's important is whether the work is engaging, there's as little politics as possible, and you're setup for success.

d0gsg0w00f 5y ago

I honestly think this is a product of large corporations being essentially incapable of firing bad resources. Companies are terrified of litigation and bad PR so the only control mechanism is the interview process.

buro9 5y ago
I do not disagree. The more people who interview, the more average the candidate has to be to succeed. For all the talk of "hire fast, fire fast" the reality is that most companies do not know how to evaluate someone within the probation time period in which they could let go of someone with ease (usually under 60 days) and after that they then fear doing so even when it's miserable for both the person (candidate) and team involved. I hire a lot, and some of my thoughts on the process: 1. The interview process should be short and sweet. 3 steps is enough, if you can't make a decision in 3 steps then the decision is to decline. 2. The hiring manager should be the first to interview. We have a good idea of what we're looking for in a team and what other roles other managers have open, we can speak of most teams and can spare both the candidate and ICs from interviews that cannot realistically result in a hire. Likewise, we can increase the chance of a successful hire by having the people from the team the candidate would be joining conduct the interview. 3. Some of the best candidates get love/hate feedback, a candidate who consistently gets "hire" feedback is seldom as good as those who get "strong hire" mixed with "no hire" feedback. The consistent "hire" usually typifies an "on the fence but don't want to take responsibility for declining so will wave through"... opinions should be stronger, interviewers should be excited for people - challenge whether a consistent stream of "hire" feedback actually means "hire". All that said, always listen to "strong no hire" when it turns up. 4. To increase diversity you only need to interview people who aren't already over-represented in your org... you will hire those people at exactly the same rate as you hire everyone else. If you don't have these people in your pipeline you have a sourcing or branding/reputation problem so focus on those things. If you do have those people and aren't hiring at the same rate, you have a bias problem and should root it out with urgency. 5. Degrees are not a signal, so absence of a degree is not a signal. 6. Don't hire based on what someone has done as it only reflects what their employers asked them to do, instead hire on what they can potentially do - if it lines up with what you want to achieve it's a win-win. Most of the above can be summed up as: Have an opinion and care about what you're doing.