4 ms·

> AFAIK communication skills are routinely evaluated in those interviews: if you have the best code but can't explain how it works, you won't score highly on th

by ken47 3y ago

> AFAIK communication skills are routinely evaluated in those interviews: if you have the best code but can't explain how it works, you won't score highly on them. You should be able to discuss tradeoffs, how you reason, etc. I want to specifically address this because communication can make or break teams. The kind of communication that you describe - conveying objective information - is not enough to build a well-functioning team. One of the most important questions, IMHO, is how do your teammates disagree with one another, especially on issues that don’t have a clear right answer? If you don’t probe for the answer to that question, then you’re hiring with a huge unknown. There’s no way to know if Mrs. leetcode master X is a team player based on these kinds of interviews. She could come in and destroy a team with her personality. Granted a socially adept person can fake a pleasant personality during a few hours of interviewing, but the rare great interview processes will at least force a mini disagreement or few and gauge the candidate’s response.

hiq 3y ago
This begs the question though: how do you evaluate communication skills better than this to encompass what you miss on technical discussions? It's easy to look like a team player in an interview setting where disagreements are low-stakes and theoretical. People do prepare for these behavioral interviews, there are whole sections in the same old reference book used for leetcode interviews. I honestly doubt people can tell between a well-prepared candidate from one that's a genuine team player before actually working with them. I also want to reiterate the point that I don't know of any company that solely uses leetcode-style interviews, so they do tend to evaluate some kind of communication skills in another one.
- ken47 3y ago
  I would hope no company relies solely on leetcode questions, but the common understanding was that Google was, at least in the not-so-distant past, among big tech companies, the closest to that style. The weight that a company allocates to communication skills can also be measured on a spectrum. What I suggested in the comment to which you responded may be considered extreme by engineering interview standards, but the more you can probe an engineer’s communication style during an interview, especially in an adversarial conversation, the higher confidence you can have in their interpersonal compatibility with your team. It’s one thing to answer questions about behavioral characteristics, which can be prepped. It’s another to induce the behavioral characteristics you’d like to test and see them for yourself. That’s a lot harder to fake.

by ken47 3y ago

hiq 3y ago

This begs the question though: how do you evaluate communication skills better than this to encompass what you miss on technical discussions? It's easy to look like a team player in an interview setting where disagreements are low-stakes and theoretical. People do prepare for these behavioral interviews, there are whole sections in the same old reference book used for leetcode interviews. I honestly doubt people can tell between a well-prepared candidate from one that's a genuine team player before actually working with them. I also want to reiterate the point that I don't know of any company that solely uses leetcode-style interviews, so they do tend to evaluate some kind of communication skills in another one.

ken47 3y ago
I would hope no company relies solely on leetcode questions, but the common understanding was that Google was, at least in the not-so-distant past, among big tech companies, the closest to that style. The weight that a company allocates to communication skills can also be measured on a spectrum. What I suggested in the comment to which you responded may be considered extreme by engineering interview standards, but the more you can probe an engineer’s communication style during an interview, especially in an adversarial conversation, the higher confidence you can have in their interpersonal compatibility with your team. It’s one thing to answer questions about behavioral characteristics, which can be prepped. It’s another to induce the behavioral characteristics you’d like to test and see them for yourself. That’s a lot harder to fake.