5 ms·

> "Does this team or any of the related teams have a person who actively rejects proposals to improve the code base?" is a BAD question to ask in an interview.

> "Does this team or any of the related teams have a person who actively rejects proposals to improve the code base?" is a BAD question to ask in an interview. What answer could an interviewer give? If I was asked this, I'd respond with "can you give an example of what kind of improvements you mean?" and discuss from there. I'd also ask something like "What's the experience you had that caused you to ask that question? What did you propose, and why did it get rejected? What would you do differently if you could go back and do it over?". This kind of discussion is what gives me the most insight into a candidate. Things like: Have they grown, maybe even see things differently now? Did they dig to fully understand why it was rejected? Did they learn how to better interact with their team? Would they propose smaller, iterative changes? Did they figure out how to justify technical changes against business value? Hint: an answer that is basically "my team was just idiots and couldn't see my brilliance" is almost certainly going to result in a "no hire" from me.

karaterobot 4y ago
It sounds like they're trying to identify whether there is an egomaniac or monomaniac with veto power on the team or not, which is a good thing to know, and a legitimate thing to want to find out before joining. I think the question is poorly phrased, because it leaves open the line of follow-up questioning you offered. It would have been better to ask something like "if I had an idea for how to improve the code base, can you describe the process for getting approval to implement it?"
- arcticbull 4y ago
  This is one of those things where you set out to learn something useful but your question makes it look like you're a dick at your old job and that you lack the self awareness to realize it's your fault your coworkers are mad at you. As someone who has interviewed easily a thousand engineers of all seniorities over the last 10 years (2-3 per week since 2012) my gut reaction would be "this candidate doesn't know how to work with others" - my next thought would be "I bet they allow code review to become architecture review and then get mad when people aren't happy with their code because they failed to get alignment first." Now whether or not that's true of this particular candidate it drives the conversation negative pretty quickly and then they have to string together the right set of answers to follow-on questions to avoid this becoming a red flag. It also puts the interviewer in a mode of looking for other red flags they might not have even paid attention to. The candidate is now on the defensive instead of projecting a positive image as @gregmac pointed out. I would re-frame this question something like: > How do you think about the role of code review in your organization? Do you distinguish between code review and architecture review? Are ICs encouraged to obtain alignment before they get started? How would your team handle/resolve a situation where someone failed to get alignment in advance? Do you have an example of when this happened and how it was resolved? To me this says "I've seen this happen before (+1) and it sucks (+2), do you have a culture of letting this happen (+5)?" not "my coworkers are mad at me (-5) but I haven't figured out why (-5) so it's probably their fault (-5)" haha. [edit] I should say if I catch a candidate making an obvious mistake like this and they successfully clear that red flag, I will advise them not to frame their question like that in the rest of their interviews - but I doubt most interviewers are as friendly.
  - travisjungroth 4y ago
    Does it at all strike you as weird that in the case where your process is giving a false signal you're suggesting how the other person should act differently?
    - Spooky23 4y ago
      He or she was offering an alternative approach to obtain the same information that is less confrontational. As framed originally, the interviewee sounds like a dick.
    - marcosdumay 4y ago
      He is impersonating one party and telling you how that person will clearly get a false signal from your actions. What do you expect him to do? To tell the party that isn't part of the conversation how to improve?
    - arcticbull 4y ago
      You can't control the hiring company's process, who the company picks as an interviewer and you don't know what else is going on in their day/life - but what you can control are your questions so you can project a positive image no matter what. I'm helping you here. My reframe isn't just "how to sound less like a dick" - although there is that - it's also a way to demonstrate maturity and positive signal at the same time which helps ensure you're leveled appropriately too. Interviewing may be a craps shoot, but you can always adjust the odds in your favor.
      - travisjungroth 4y ago
        > You can't control the hiring company's process You can. You're an interviewer. Lost of people on this site are interviewers. I get that your advice is more useful to interviewers. I get the stuff about maturity, and so on. No reason to bring it up again. What you don't seem to get is that every bit of your comments take the side of the interviewer as an immutable force that must be adapted to by the interviewee. If a few tweaks can have such a big impact on a classifying mechanism, maybe there's something wrong with the mechanism. At the very least I just want to point out that you could have the reaction "This makes me realize the mistakes in my interviewing and how I will change and suggest others do." vs "Here's how candidates should act differently to not give a negative impression to important people like me."
tpoacher 4y ago
There is a name for this technique, but I forget the exact term. Something about Rabbis who always answer a question with another question. When two Rabbis discuss, this often ends in "question volley" ad infinitum. This has been humorously played upon in a game (called The Shivah) who used it as an equivalent to Monkey Island's Insult Swordfight, where if you failed to answer a question with a question you'd "lose" the point.

karaterobot 4y ago

It sounds like they're trying to identify whether there is an egomaniac or monomaniac with veto power on the team or not, which is a good thing to know, and a legitimate thing to want to find out before joining. I think the question is poorly phrased, because it leaves open the line of follow-up questioning you offered. It would have been better to ask something like "if I had an idea for how to improve the code base, can you describe the process for getting approval to implement it?"

arcticbull 4y ago
This is one of those things where you set out to learn something useful but your question makes it look like you're a dick at your old job and that you lack the self awareness to realize it's your fault your coworkers are mad at you. As someone who has interviewed easily a thousand engineers of all seniorities over the last 10 years (2-3 per week since 2012) my gut reaction would be "this candidate doesn't know how to work with others" - my next thought would be "I bet they allow code review to become architecture review and then get mad when people aren't happy with their code because they failed to get alignment first." Now whether or not that's true of this particular candidate it drives the conversation negative pretty quickly and then they have to string together the right set of answers to follow-on questions to avoid this becoming a red flag. It also puts the interviewer in a mode of looking for other red flags they might not have even paid attention to. The candidate is now on the defensive instead of projecting a positive image as @gregmac pointed out. I would re-frame this question something like: > How do you think about the role of code review in your organization? Do you distinguish between code review and architecture review? Are ICs encouraged to obtain alignment before they get started? How would your team handle/resolve a situation where someone failed to get alignment in advance? Do you have an example of when this happened and how it was resolved? To me this says "I've seen this happen before (+1) and it sucks (+2), do you have a culture of letting this happen (+5)?" not "my coworkers are mad at me (-5) but I haven't figured out why (-5) so it's probably their fault (-5)" haha. [edit] I should say if I catch a candidate making an obvious mistake like this and they successfully clear that red flag, I will advise them not to frame their question like that in the rest of their interviews - but I doubt most interviewers are as friendly.
- travisjungroth 4y ago
  Does it at all strike you as weird that in the case where your process is giving a false signal you're suggesting how the other person should act differently?
  - Spooky23 4y ago
    He or she was offering an alternative approach to obtain the same information that is less confrontational. As framed originally, the interviewee sounds like a dick.
  - marcosdumay 4y ago
    He is impersonating one party and telling you how that person will clearly get a false signal from your actions. What do you expect him to do? To tell the party that isn't part of the conversation how to improve?
  - arcticbull 4y ago
    You can't control the hiring company's process, who the company picks as an interviewer and you don't know what else is going on in their day/life - but what you can control are your questions so you can project a positive image no matter what. I'm helping you here. My reframe isn't just "how to sound less like a dick" - although there is that - it's also a way to demonstrate maturity and positive signal at the same time which helps ensure you're leveled appropriately too. Interviewing may be a craps shoot, but you can always adjust the odds in your favor.
    - travisjungroth 4y ago
      > You can't control the hiring company's process You can. You're an interviewer. Lost of people on this site are interviewers. I get that your advice is more useful to interviewers. I get the stuff about maturity, and so on. No reason to bring it up again. What you don't seem to get is that every bit of your comments take the side of the interviewer as an immutable force that must be adapted to by the interviewee. If a few tweaks can have such a big impact on a classifying mechanism, maybe there's something wrong with the mechanism. At the very least I just want to point out that you could have the reaction "This makes me realize the mistakes in my interviewing and how I will change and suggest others do." vs "Here's how candidates should act differently to not give a negative impression to important people like me."

tpoacher 4y ago

There is a name for this technique, but I forget the exact term. Something about Rabbis who always answer a question with another question. When two Rabbis discuss, this often ends in "question volley" ad infinitum. This has been humorously played upon in a game (called The Shivah) who used it as an equivalent to Monkey Island's Insult Swordfight, where if you failed to answer a question with a question you'd "lose" the point.