6 ms·

I recently interviewed for a senior level role for a complex domain (payments), this is an area I have more than a decade of experience. The interviews went fla

I recently interviewed for a senior level role for a complex domain (payments), this is an area I have more than a decade of experience. The interviews went flawlessly because I know payments inside out, not just in US but in UK and most EU jurisdictions. The funny bit is that the role being senior, influencing, soft communication skills and managing conflict are even more important than the subject matter expertise and I nailed those areas as well (they threw an obnoxious senior manager that kept interrupting me as I calmly answered the questions, the follow up was that my performance was a masterclass in handling conflict). The final round was with a business person who fancied himself the defacto subject matter expert and kept throwing trivia questions about payments. His plan was to go through as much trivia as he could until he could find something to justify a no. His last question (he literally stopped as soon as he got his way after this question), the question was, have you got personal experience working on real-time payments? I do, in more than one countries (US introduced this very recently as part of fednow), he pushed me about the fednow and obviously this is so new that I only have read the specifications and evaluated a few vendors to decide whether to build or buy. He used this as justification to make a negative reommendation, claiming I don't have real-time payments experience. Honestly, I don't want to work in an environment like that, it was a large US bank and where their biggest problems are not product innovation or focusing on customer but production failures! An area I have rescued several large companies in, apart from payments expertise and made sure I communicated this. But sometimes you get lucky and don't have to find out the hard way that this place is not pleasant.

rexreed 2y ago
In an environment like that you'll be respected a lot more as a consultant and paid advisor, even if you provide generic and mediocre advice, than as an employee providing high quality expertise. Toxic management loves overpaid external consultants and advisors more than their own, much lesser paid internal staff.
mianos 2y ago
I've experienced something very similar in the same field. It's honestly frustrating when you're fully prepared and qualified, yet the process feels more like a trivia game than a genuine evaluation of your skills and experience. As others have pointed out, this kind of behaviour is a clear sign of a toxic culture. What's even more absurd is that it should be the exact opposite. If they're looking to grow their team or replace someone, they should be seeking out someone who's even better than anyone they currently have. When they nitpick or push for irrelevant details just to find a reason to say 'no,' it's a massive red flag. It shows they're not really interested in innovation or solving the real problems, like the endless production failures we've already helped other companies overcome. Honestly, in situations like that, the best thing you can do is apologise for wasting their time and walk away. But I get it when they have the job in your area, it's tempting to tolerate the nonsense. Still, it’s a good reminder that sometimes, dodging that bullet is actually a blessing in disguise, even though you are unemployed and running out of money, as I was at the time.
penguin_booze 2y ago
> He used this as justification to make a negative reommendation, claiming I don't have real-time payments experience. There: the same situation, pre-enacted by Steve Martin in Pink Panther: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBwn7ycR7_Y https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBwn7ycR7_Y. Probing one's ancestry until the answer is 'farmers'.
AmericanChopper 2y ago
That SME guy sounds like an asshole, but I used to have an interview technique where I’d ask increasingly specific and low level questions about the candidates area of expertise until it got to the point where I’d be pretty confident they wouldn’t know the answer off the top of their head. I wasn’t adversarial or rude about it, I just wanted to find out if they were comfortable saying “I don’t know”, because not knowing something is an everyday part of technical work, but not being comfortable saying it can be big source of issues. The candidates who were otherwise the most competent tended to be the most comfortable with the I don’t know answer. Getting defensive about it I always considered to be a red flag.
- more_corn 2y ago
  My first interview at a FAANG company was so awesome. The interviewer said “I’m going to keep asking you questions till you can’t answer anymore. That way I learn the limit of your knowledge. If I can’t it’s because your knowledge in that area exceeds mine.” This framing has helped me ever since. It helped me emotionally to recognize that finding the limits of one’s knowledge is not a bad thing, it helped me get the job, it helped me interview people, it helped me hire people who knew more than me.
- asveikau 2y ago
  I remember some experiences where an interviewer thinks they are doing a deep reach for something they think should be an "I don't know", but it happens to be something you do know. Sometimes they think you're bullshitting or arrogant for this. Judging people and getting an accurate read on people is hard. Often people are overconfident in their ability to do it.
- rocketbop 2y ago
  I always say I don’t know in interviews when I really don’t, rather than try to bluff. Some interviewers don’t like this though. As with the parent, perhaps that’s actually a good thing as you avoid having to work in a bad environment. Other times though, you may be being interviewed with a bad egg who you’ll never actually need to work with in the actual job.
potamic 2y ago
> they threw an obnoxious senior manager that kept interrupting me as I calmly answered the questions This is a red flag. To me this signals that a company not only has a toxic culture, but embraces it. Such places attract personalities who love conflict and once there are enough people, they set the culture. What doesn't get said often is that conflict is a failure of leadership. Often all it takes to resolve conflict is for one very senior leader to snap their fingers and say, "Guys, I want you two to make this happen". But what happens is that leadership is either far too disconnected from the ground to align their teams, or they constitutionally advocate conflict within their teams in the name of competitiveness. Either way, such places can be hell to work in.
- cjblomqvist 2y ago
  Personally, I don't like this kind of thinking that it's a failure of leadership first and foremost. Yes, of course leadership can both work proactively to prevent conflict, as well as try to minimize/react to situations. But, what about the conflicting people? Shouldn't they (in most situations), bear the most responsibility to not end up/turn a situation into a conflict? Sometimes I get afraid of comments that (in my interpretation) imply that basically everything bad that happens is the fault of leadership (management). To me that breeds a culture where ICs are taught to not own their situation, which I believe is very very dangerous (to everyone involved). Maybe I'm just interpreting your comment wrong :)
  - mulmen 2y ago
    As an IC leadership picks my coworkers and my projects for me. Why should I be made responsible for the consequences of their decisions? What do you think leadership does do if not build successful teams? If I am expected to get along with everyone on my team then I expect to be allowed to make hiring, firing, and prioritization decisions. At which point I’m now leadership and we don’t need dedicated leaders.
- talldrinkofwhat 2y ago
  The way I read it:they inserted the manager as a litmus test AGAINST aggression / toxic culture. Kind of like when a psychology test is given, the __thing__ they're trying to measure is always one level removed / abstracted to avoid subjects gaming the system. I suppose deceptive practices in interviews don't bode well, but I could see the argument given the interviewee could be deceptive (something that this site complains about a lot with upper management / ChiefBullshittingOperatives etc.)

rexreed 2y ago

In an environment like that you'll be respected a lot more as a consultant and paid advisor, even if you provide generic and mediocre advice, than as an employee providing high quality expertise. Toxic management loves overpaid external consultants and advisors more than their own, much lesser paid internal staff.

mianos 2y ago

I've experienced something very similar in the same field. It's honestly frustrating when you're fully prepared and qualified, yet the process feels more like a trivia game than a genuine evaluation of your skills and experience. As others have pointed out, this kind of behaviour is a clear sign of a toxic culture. What's even more absurd is that it should be the exact opposite. If they're looking to grow their team or replace someone, they should be seeking out someone who's even better than anyone they currently have. When they nitpick or push for irrelevant details just to find a reason to say 'no,' it's a massive red flag. It shows they're not really interested in innovation or solving the real problems, like the endless production failures we've already helped other companies overcome. Honestly, in situations like that, the best thing you can do is apologise for wasting their time and walk away. But I get it when they have the job in your area, it's tempting to tolerate the nonsense. Still, it’s a good reminder that sometimes, dodging that bullet is actually a blessing in disguise, even though you are unemployed and running out of money, as I was at the time.

penguin_booze 2y ago

> He used this as justification to make a negative reommendation, claiming I don't have real-time payments experience. There: the same situation, pre-enacted by Steve Martin in Pink Panther: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBwn7ycR7_Y https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBwn7ycR7_Y. Probing one's ancestry until the answer is 'farmers'.

AmericanChopper 2y ago

That SME guy sounds like an asshole, but I used to have an interview technique where I’d ask increasingly specific and low level questions about the candidates area of expertise until it got to the point where I’d be pretty confident they wouldn’t know the answer off the top of their head. I wasn’t adversarial or rude about it, I just wanted to find out if they were comfortable saying “I don’t know”, because not knowing something is an everyday part of technical work, but not being comfortable saying it can be big source of issues. The candidates who were otherwise the most competent tended to be the most comfortable with the I don’t know answer. Getting defensive about it I always considered to be a red flag.

more_corn 2y ago
My first interview at a FAANG company was so awesome. The interviewer said “I’m going to keep asking you questions till you can’t answer anymore. That way I learn the limit of your knowledge. If I can’t it’s because your knowledge in that area exceeds mine.” This framing has helped me ever since. It helped me emotionally to recognize that finding the limits of one’s knowledge is not a bad thing, it helped me get the job, it helped me interview people, it helped me hire people who knew more than me.
asveikau 2y ago
I remember some experiences where an interviewer thinks they are doing a deep reach for something they think should be an "I don't know", but it happens to be something you do know. Sometimes they think you're bullshitting or arrogant for this. Judging people and getting an accurate read on people is hard. Often people are overconfident in their ability to do it.
rocketbop 2y ago
I always say I don’t know in interviews when I really don’t, rather than try to bluff. Some interviewers don’t like this though. As with the parent, perhaps that’s actually a good thing as you avoid having to work in a bad environment. Other times though, you may be being interviewed with a bad egg who you’ll never actually need to work with in the actual job.

potamic 2y ago

> they threw an obnoxious senior manager that kept interrupting me as I calmly answered the questions This is a red flag. To me this signals that a company not only has a toxic culture, but embraces it. Such places attract personalities who love conflict and once there are enough people, they set the culture. What doesn't get said often is that conflict is a failure of leadership. Often all it takes to resolve conflict is for one very senior leader to snap their fingers and say, "Guys, I want you two to make this happen". But what happens is that leadership is either far too disconnected from the ground to align their teams, or they constitutionally advocate conflict within their teams in the name of competitiveness. Either way, such places can be hell to work in.

cjblomqvist 2y ago
Personally, I don't like this kind of thinking that it's a failure of leadership first and foremost. Yes, of course leadership can both work proactively to prevent conflict, as well as try to minimize/react to situations. But, what about the conflicting people? Shouldn't they (in most situations), bear the most responsibility to not end up/turn a situation into a conflict? Sometimes I get afraid of comments that (in my interpretation) imply that basically everything bad that happens is the fault of leadership (management). To me that breeds a culture where ICs are taught to not own their situation, which I believe is very very dangerous (to everyone involved). Maybe I'm just interpreting your comment wrong :)
- mulmen 2y ago
  As an IC leadership picks my coworkers and my projects for me. Why should I be made responsible for the consequences of their decisions? What do you think leadership does do if not build successful teams? If I am expected to get along with everyone on my team then I expect to be allowed to make hiring, firing, and prioritization decisions. At which point I’m now leadership and we don’t need dedicated leaders.
talldrinkofwhat 2y ago
The way I read it:they inserted the manager as a litmus test AGAINST aggression / toxic culture. Kind of like when a psychology test is given, the __thing__ they're trying to measure is always one level removed / abstracted to avoid subjects gaming the system. I suppose deceptive practices in interviews don't bode well, but I could see the argument given the interviewee could be deceptive (something that this site complains about a lot with upper management / ChiefBullshittingOperatives etc.)