4 ms·

"Talk is cheap, show me the code." Any engineer worth their salt will "naturally" communicate by asking questions, appear friendly, or even admit when they're s

"Talk is cheap, show me the code." Any engineer worth their salt will "naturally" communicate by asking questions, appear friendly, or even admit when they're stuck or don't know something. The problem is the reverse is probably as common, but, honestly, equally valuable: if you have a person who simply shows amazing tech skills, and talks when prompted to, I mean, will you reject this person in favour of a less stronger candidate just because that weaker candidate was more outgoing? I mean, in technical interviews you have to be technical and solve your stuff, that's it. FAANG system design interviews actually somehow require some clarifying questions to clear out ambiguous requirements or probe for missing data, but, I have seen and witnessed people immediately tabling X, Y and Z assumptions and go "assuming these....." and immediately craft a perfect solution - pass with flying colors. The rest will be gauged in behavioral interviews and in the final decision meeting to put forward an offer or not. But in technical interviews? Just solve the thing.

jseban 4y ago
> shows amazing tech skills, and talks when prompted to, I mean, will you reject this person in favour of a less stronger candidate just because that weaker candidate was more outgoing? If they are the opposite, they will not ask questions (but instead make assumptions) and refuse to admit when they're wrong. Yes I would absolutely reject such a person regardless of technical skills, I would even fire them. These people can have a very negative influence on the culture and turn it into a competition of ego instead of actually understanding and solving problems, which is also stopping everyone else on the team as well from actually solving problems, because this person will act as a huge blocker. Technical ability doesn't help you at all if you are insisting on solving the wrong problem. > But in technical interviews? Just solve the thing. Yes sure, but the issue is that there is no non-technical part.
- nopeYouAreWrong 4y ago
  You must live in an all-white people world. ESL creates a lot of quiet people. Not everyone that is quiet is an egotistical toxic maniac.
  - jseban 4y ago
    > Not everyone that is quiet is an egotistical toxic maniac. No but being quiet unless prompted to speak, will make a team work environment dysfunctional.
    - xkqd 4y ago
      > No but being quiet unless prompted to speak, will make a team work environment dysfunctional. I probably can’t be convinced that individuals who keep to themselves will create a dysfunctional work environment. If I’m reading your statement as strict as you wrote it, I’ll mention I have never worked with someone who felt they could not speak unless spoken to.
    - BlargMcLarg 4y ago
      There are entire cultures which function this way. Even in the Anglosphere, the far majority of people won't talk about most their issues until designated times and prompted by bosses. You're overestimating the proactivity of most people, and how important that proactivity is beyond making an impression one is proactive at a job interview (read: faking it). And the willingness of others to endure what a large crowd of truly proactive people would do when constrained by a huge management overhead: complain a lot until they are fired or finally given the power to solve their own problems.
      - jseban 4y ago
        > There are entire cultures which function this way. Even in the Anglosphere, the far majority of people won't talk about most their issues until designated times and prompted by bosses. Yeah, for example the military and factory work. But not team work environment, it does not function this way.
        BlargMcLarg 4y ago
        Upper thread already gave you the ESL example. You're taking things out of context and arguing a strawman. Most people aren't proactive. End of. To think otherwise is to dismiss what modern schooling does to individuals and to forget the downside of proactivity: increased friction when people can't agree on what they want. If we agree communication is important, surely you're not going to dismiss the obvious that most people suck at trying to come to an agreement when everyone is trying to play proactively. There's a reason management methodologies are so tight on synced up moments of conversation and prodding people to talk even when they themselves like there's nothing to be said. It's all to push people into talking. You can do that with reactive people. It's not optimal, but it works and is a lot more feasible than trying to create a culture with mostly proactive, total strangers who somehow agree enough not to devolve into death by committee.

jseban 4y ago

> shows amazing tech skills, and talks when prompted to, I mean, will you reject this person in favour of a less stronger candidate just because that weaker candidate was more outgoing? If they are the opposite, they will not ask questions (but instead make assumptions) and refuse to admit when they're wrong. Yes I would absolutely reject such a person regardless of technical skills, I would even fire them. These people can have a very negative influence on the culture and turn it into a competition of ego instead of actually understanding and solving problems, which is also stopping everyone else on the team as well from actually solving problems, because this person will act as a huge blocker. Technical ability doesn't help you at all if you are insisting on solving the wrong problem. > But in technical interviews? Just solve the thing. Yes sure, but the issue is that there is no non-technical part.

nopeYouAreWrong 4y ago
You must live in an all-white people world. ESL creates a lot of quiet people. Not everyone that is quiet is an egotistical toxic maniac.
- jseban 4y ago
  > Not everyone that is quiet is an egotistical toxic maniac. No but being quiet unless prompted to speak, will make a team work environment dysfunctional.
  - xkqd 4y ago
    > No but being quiet unless prompted to speak, will make a team work environment dysfunctional. I probably can’t be convinced that individuals who keep to themselves will create a dysfunctional work environment. If I’m reading your statement as strict as you wrote it, I’ll mention I have never worked with someone who felt they could not speak unless spoken to.
  - BlargMcLarg 4y ago
    There are entire cultures which function this way. Even in the Anglosphere, the far majority of people won't talk about most their issues until designated times and prompted by bosses. You're overestimating the proactivity of most people, and how important that proactivity is beyond making an impression one is proactive at a job interview (read: faking it). And the willingness of others to endure what a large crowd of truly proactive people would do when constrained by a huge management overhead: complain a lot until they are fired or finally given the power to solve their own problems.
    - jseban 4y ago
      > There are entire cultures which function this way. Even in the Anglosphere, the far majority of people won't talk about most their issues until designated times and prompted by bosses. Yeah, for example the military and factory work. But not team work environment, it does not function this way.
      - BlargMcLarg 4y ago
        Upper thread already gave you the ESL example. You're taking things out of context and arguing a strawman. Most people aren't proactive. End of. To think otherwise is to dismiss what modern schooling does to individuals and to forget the downside of proactivity: increased friction when people can't agree on what they want. If we agree communication is important, surely you're not going to dismiss the obvious that most people suck at trying to come to an agreement when everyone is trying to play proactively. There's a reason management methodologies are so tight on synced up moments of conversation and prodding people to talk even when they themselves like there's nothing to be said. It's all to push people into talking. You can do that with reactive people. It's not optimal, but it works and is a lot more feasible than trying to create a culture with mostly proactive, total strangers who somehow agree enough not to devolve into death by committee.