3 ms·

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

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."
    - arcticbull 4y ago
      > "Here's how candidates should act differently to not give a negative impression to important people like me." I'm only important in the sense that my job is to obtain a fair and consistent evaluation of someone along a defined set of criteria - to see if there's a good mutual fit! I want a candidate to succeed once hired, so I'm looking for signals that they would succeed. A mis-hire sucks because getting fired sucks. That's why I'm also looking for signals they would not succeed. A lot of the time we try and avoid false-positives at the cost of false-negatives. We're looking for certain things, and in the scope of just a 45m or 1h window it's really hard to get a complete picture of who someone is. This is also why have multiple interviewers ask many different kinds of questions. I'm quite sympathetic to your position and I'm always super active in hiring wherever I work. I built our Mobile Staff+ interview loop at my current employer and trained up a most of the interviewers! I do my best to make the process suck less for all involved, but folks like me won't always be on the other side. Even at employers you'd otherwise love! That's why I was hoping to provide some quick tips to eliminate potential roadblocks no matter who you find yourself up against.

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."
  - arcticbull 4y ago
    > "Here's how candidates should act differently to not give a negative impression to important people like me." I'm only important in the sense that my job is to obtain a fair and consistent evaluation of someone along a defined set of criteria - to see if there's a good mutual fit! I want a candidate to succeed once hired, so I'm looking for signals that they would succeed. A mis-hire sucks because getting fired sucks. That's why I'm also looking for signals they would not succeed. A lot of the time we try and avoid false-positives at the cost of false-negatives. We're looking for certain things, and in the scope of just a 45m or 1h window it's really hard to get a complete picture of who someone is. This is also why have multiple interviewers ask many different kinds of questions. I'm quite sympathetic to your position and I'm always super active in hiring wherever I work. I built our Mobile Staff+ interview loop at my current employer and trained up a most of the interviewers! I do my best to make the process suck less for all involved, but folks like me won't always be on the other side. Even at employers you'd otherwise love! That's why I was hoping to provide some quick tips to eliminate potential roadblocks no matter who you find yourself up against.