6 ms·

Anand would do well to read the room. This is why soft skills are so valued. If he sees he’s annoying the vp with too many questions, maybe dial it back. Does A

by Leires 3y ago

Anand would do well to read the room. This is why soft skills are so valued. If he sees he’s annoying the vp with too many questions, maybe dial it back. Does Anand want the job or want to be right?

thinkingkong 3y ago
Its easy to misread people after several hours of interviewing. Especially if everyone else is open to questions and things go well. Id actually apply criticism to the VP ahead of the candidate. My expectation is that someone operating at the VP level has some degree of self awareness which this person clearly lacked.
BossingAround 3y ago
I'm not sure why it's only on Anand. If the VP was getting annoyed, why couldn't the VP steer the conversation? He's the VP ffs. Isn't "having conversations" one of the key job requirements for any VP? The problem with "just read the room" is that you can very easily misread someone when you're meeting them for the first time, for example during a several-hour-long interview session.
BazookaMusic 3y ago
Anand could very well be moving across countries and investing immense amounts of times to start a new life. He could also be leaving a great job to seek a new challenge in a company he wants to invest years of his effort in. The VP has also dedicated time specifically for Anand's interview. He also probably has the power to fire him in short notice and with limited severance. Anand should ask all the annoying questions. This way he's saving both himself and the VP all the wasted time of hiring him and then having a broken relationship because things weren't clear later. This way the VP can also see what concerns the potential employee and if they have a potential mismatch in expectations. Finally, even if we disregard all that I said above, if it's Anand's working style to ask a lot of questions and he hides this style during the interview, then he will invariably clash with management later due to it if he's hired. Then he may have more to lose then just a potential future job.
devnullbrain 3y ago
He wants to be right. A job interview is not like an exam, it's like dating. An opportunity for two parties to decide if they can work together. Hiding who you really are to 'pass' is a bad foundation. That's why I don't like the conclusion of the article. Anand didn't fail the interview because the criteria were wrong - the interviewer failed because they suck at being an engineering manager.
- chii 3y ago
  > it's like dating ... Hiding who you really are to 'pass' is a bad foundation. you'd be surprised at the amount of people who fake themselves for the date.
  - drekipus 3y ago
    And continuing into the resulting relationships
  - bheadmaster 3y ago
    To be fair, not all of us can be socially competent mentally healthy people who enjoy life and regularly stop to smell the flowers. Some of us just suck, some of us are miserable, so we have to put on a fake persona in order to entertain the other person enough for them to actually give us a chance. In a way, dating is all about entertaining and being entertained. It's either that or stay lonely.
    - dublinben 3y ago
      The better alternative is to work on yourself to become a better person, who is worthy of dating without deception.
      - bheadmaster 3y ago
        You are implicitly assuming that there's some finite amount of work that could make every such person "dateable without deception". While it may or may not be true in individual case, as a general statement it sounds to me more like "well, it's _your_ fault because you didn't work on yourself enough, so you deserve to be lonely".
jacknews 3y ago
OTOH maybe the VP feels challenged, which is why the questions are 'annoying'. I mean, in this climate where people are being asked to win X-factor competitions for the privilege of a job, how sure are we that those already onboard would pass if they had to run the gauntlet?
beowulfey 3y ago
Personally, I would not enjoy working for someone who was annoyed by me asking questions. Questions mean someone is interested in it, and is paying attention. To learn about something is to invest effort into it; it’s a great sign. Anand dodged a bullet here IMO.
civilized 3y ago
The article says that being an effective contributor is more about bringing a fresh perspective to the table, rather than making leadership comfortable. It also says that Anand was ultimately hired and was effective in the role. It's sad when "read the room" and "soft skills" are equated to agreeableness and making management comfortable. A company that thinks this way has only one real brain, the one in the head of the leader. Everyone else's job is to agree with that brain, not use their own brains to question it. If the leader happens to be a world-historical genius, this might work, but that's not true in most cases, so such a dictatorial structure doesn't seem likely to be the foundation of a successful company.
- civilized 3y ago
  And actually, there's an even more devastating problem with being a dictator who surrounds themselves with yes-folk. Dictators don't like information that contradicts their perspective, and the yes-folk learn that. So eventually the dictator is only getting information that confirms what they think, and the org becomes incapable of adaptation.

by Leires 3y ago

thinkingkong 3y ago

Its easy to misread people after several hours of interviewing. Especially if everyone else is open to questions and things go well. Id actually apply criticism to the VP ahead of the candidate. My expectation is that someone operating at the VP level has some degree of self awareness which this person clearly lacked.

BossingAround 3y ago

I'm not sure why it's only on Anand. If the VP was getting annoyed, why couldn't the VP steer the conversation? He's the VP ffs. Isn't "having conversations" one of the key job requirements for any VP? The problem with "just read the room" is that you can very easily misread someone when you're meeting them for the first time, for example during a several-hour-long interview session.

BazookaMusic 3y ago

Anand could very well be moving across countries and investing immense amounts of times to start a new life. He could also be leaving a great job to seek a new challenge in a company he wants to invest years of his effort in. The VP has also dedicated time specifically for Anand's interview. He also probably has the power to fire him in short notice and with limited severance. Anand should ask all the annoying questions. This way he's saving both himself and the VP all the wasted time of hiring him and then having a broken relationship because things weren't clear later. This way the VP can also see what concerns the potential employee and if they have a potential mismatch in expectations. Finally, even if we disregard all that I said above, if it's Anand's working style to ask a lot of questions and he hides this style during the interview, then he will invariably clash with management later due to it if he's hired. Then he may have more to lose then just a potential future job.

devnullbrain 3y ago

He wants to be right. A job interview is not like an exam, it's like dating. An opportunity for two parties to decide if they can work together. Hiding who you really are to 'pass' is a bad foundation. That's why I don't like the conclusion of the article. Anand didn't fail the interview because the criteria were wrong - the interviewer failed because they suck at being an engineering manager.

chii 3y ago
> it's like dating ... Hiding who you really are to 'pass' is a bad foundation. you'd be surprised at the amount of people who fake themselves for the date.
- drekipus 3y ago
  And continuing into the resulting relationships
- bheadmaster 3y ago
  To be fair, not all of us can be socially competent mentally healthy people who enjoy life and regularly stop to smell the flowers. Some of us just suck, some of us are miserable, so we have to put on a fake persona in order to entertain the other person enough for them to actually give us a chance. In a way, dating is all about entertaining and being entertained. It's either that or stay lonely.
  - dublinben 3y ago
    The better alternative is to work on yourself to become a better person, who is worthy of dating without deception.
    - bheadmaster 3y ago
      You are implicitly assuming that there's some finite amount of work that could make every such person "dateable without deception". While it may or may not be true in individual case, as a general statement it sounds to me more like "well, it's _your_ fault because you didn't work on yourself enough, so you deserve to be lonely".

jacknews 3y ago

OTOH maybe the VP feels challenged, which is why the questions are 'annoying'. I mean, in this climate where people are being asked to win X-factor competitions for the privilege of a job, how sure are we that those already onboard would pass if they had to run the gauntlet?

beowulfey 3y ago

Personally, I would not enjoy working for someone who was annoyed by me asking questions. Questions mean someone is interested in it, and is paying attention. To learn about something is to invest effort into it; it’s a great sign. Anand dodged a bullet here IMO.

civilized 3y ago

The article says that being an effective contributor is more about bringing a fresh perspective to the table, rather than making leadership comfortable. It also says that Anand was ultimately hired and was effective in the role. It's sad when "read the room" and "soft skills" are equated to agreeableness and making management comfortable. A company that thinks this way has only one real brain, the one in the head of the leader. Everyone else's job is to agree with that brain, not use their own brains to question it. If the leader happens to be a world-historical genius, this might work, but that's not true in most cases, so such a dictatorial structure doesn't seem likely to be the foundation of a successful company.

civilized 3y ago
And actually, there's an even more devastating problem with being a dictator who surrounds themselves with yes-folk. Dictators don't like information that contradicts their perspective, and the yes-folk learn that. So eventually the dictator is only getting information that confirms what they think, and the org becomes incapable of adaptation.