3 ms·

If I'm kind of stiff in conversations with strangers but decent at programming, does that mean that your company doesn't have a place for me?

by jstx1 5y ago

halfmatthalfcat 5y ago
Are you stiff when talking about programming? Regardless what you're talking about, you're going to have to work with a team and communicate the problems at hand. I think that's really the crux of "having a conversational interview". Can you communicate technical things, both broadly and in depth, effectively.
kube-system 5y ago
Not the OP, but I have a similar experience. Being “stiff in conversations” is not really enough detail to answer the question. I don’t care about whether people are social butterflies. I care about whether they can accomplish the work as a part of a team. I know that sounds cliche but it’s the truth. I just want people who are accepting to feedback, don’t act unprofessionally, and can effectively work in a team.
- cema 5y ago
  Accepting feedback, but also providing feedback, also asking for it. So being able to initiate a conversation when needed is an important skill.
jfengel 5y ago
The problem with "decent at programming" is that it's often only a fraction of the job. You rarely get formal specifications and clear orders. Nearly everything involves discussion of the user's needs or eliciting the circumstances of a bug. Real programming is very little like they teach in school and even less like coding competition. Being good at programming is great, and mandatory, but if you can't also have a conversation then you can't actually do most jobs.
- jstx1 5y ago
  In my experience there's a big difference between an interview and talking/communicating/collaborating with coworkers. I don't think that you can use one as a reliable predictor of the other.
  - jfengel 5y ago
    I think that's the point of TFA. You can never predict perfectly but it might be a closer approximation than a traditional interview. At least you're talking about programming, something you should know about. In the actual job you'll have to talk about the subject domain, which you aren't always an expert in.
  - xyzelement 5y ago
    > I don't think that you can use one as a reliable predictor of the other. It's pretty hard to claim that there's no signal from this kind of interview. Candidate A: was able to have a conversation with me, asked good questions, explained their thinking well, was easy to follow, etc. Candidate B: seemed to not understand what I was saying/asking, his answers were rambling and incoherent, and unless I led the conversation he just sat there in awkward silence. You can't make a prediction about which of these is more likely to communicate well at the office?
    - Jensson 5y ago
      All else being equal on paper, the better their social skills the worse all their other skills will be since otherwise the guy with social skills would have had a way stronger career than the guy without and then they wouldn't be equal on paper. The problem is the halo effect here. Candidate A has likely gotten preferential treatment throughout their entire life thanks to his social skills, possibly all the achievements they listed were just because they were good at talking and never had to perform in previous jobs? While if candidate B has similar achievements but acts like that then you know he earned them, since nobody would give such a guy a pass unless they knew their shit. On average a new employer will rate the persons work the same as the persons old employers, since these are the same set. So if both the socially savy person and the socially inept person got the same rating at previous employers, then you should expect to rate these two the same as well. If in these cases your process prefers the first over the second then you will over select for social savviness and under select for technical acumen.

If I'm kind of stiff in conversations with strangers but decent at programming, does that mean that your company doesn't have a place for me?

by jstx1 5y ago

If I'm kind of stiff in conversations with strangers but decent at programming, does that mean that your company doesn't have a place for me?

halfmatthalfcat 5y ago

Are you stiff when talking about programming? Regardless what you're talking about, you're going to have to work with a team and communicate the problems at hand. I think that's really the crux of "having a conversational interview". Can you communicate technical things, both broadly and in depth, effectively.

kube-system 5y ago

Not the OP, but I have a similar experience. Being “stiff in conversations” is not really enough detail to answer the question. I don’t care about whether people are social butterflies. I care about whether they can accomplish the work as a part of a team. I know that sounds cliche but it’s the truth. I just want people who are accepting to feedback, don’t act unprofessionally, and can effectively work in a team.

cema 5y ago
Accepting feedback, but also providing feedback, also asking for it. So being able to initiate a conversation when needed is an important skill.

jfengel 5y ago

The problem with "decent at programming" is that it's often only a fraction of the job. You rarely get formal specifications and clear orders. Nearly everything involves discussion of the user's needs or eliciting the circumstances of a bug. Real programming is very little like they teach in school and even less like coding competition. Being good at programming is great, and mandatory, but if you can't also have a conversation then you can't actually do most jobs.

jstx1 5y ago
In my experience there's a big difference between an interview and talking/communicating/collaborating with coworkers. I don't think that you can use one as a reliable predictor of the other.
- jfengel 5y ago
  I think that's the point of TFA. You can never predict perfectly but it might be a closer approximation than a traditional interview. At least you're talking about programming, something you should know about. In the actual job you'll have to talk about the subject domain, which you aren't always an expert in.
- xyzelement 5y ago
  > I don't think that you can use one as a reliable predictor of the other. It's pretty hard to claim that there's no signal from this kind of interview. Candidate A: was able to have a conversation with me, asked good questions, explained their thinking well, was easy to follow, etc. Candidate B: seemed to not understand what I was saying/asking, his answers were rambling and incoherent, and unless I led the conversation he just sat there in awkward silence. You can't make a prediction about which of these is more likely to communicate well at the office?
  - Jensson 5y ago
    All else being equal on paper, the better their social skills the worse all their other skills will be since otherwise the guy with social skills would have had a way stronger career than the guy without and then they wouldn't be equal on paper. The problem is the halo effect here. Candidate A has likely gotten preferential treatment throughout their entire life thanks to his social skills, possibly all the achievements they listed were just because they were good at talking and never had to perform in previous jobs? While if candidate B has similar achievements but acts like that then you know he earned them, since nobody would give such a guy a pass unless they knew their shit. On average a new employer will rate the persons work the same as the persons old employers, since these are the same set. So if both the socially savy person and the socially inept person got the same rating at previous employers, then you should expect to rate these two the same as well. If in these cases your process prefers the first over the second then you will over select for social savviness and under select for technical acumen.