4 ms·

> if an interviewer says "I don't think that will be a good idea" just take the hint that it won't be what the expect and change it. I'd like to underline this

by qsort 2y ago

> if an interviewer says "I don't think that will be a good idea" just take the hint that it won't be what the expect and change it. I'd like to underline this just in case the author reads the thread. He really does seem great and I wish all the best to him, but reading between the lines is a useful skill regardless of this specific situation. He says he doesn't speak English well, that might have played a role in the misunderstanding, but "I don't think that will be a good idea" is not a suggestion, it's an order.

xnickb 2y ago
Smells like poor management to me. "We'd like you to explore this path and show how you would deal with problems that occur there" is much easier to interpret than the passive aggressive tone of "I don't think .." I would also go with my idea and see how the manager reacted: there is only so much micromanagement I'm willing to tolerate at work. Interviews go both ways.
317070 2y ago
Yeah, it's an English thing. A literal translation in Dutch would mean "explain yourself here", and if you'd change tack because of the question alone, it would seem like you really lack self-confidence. But after living in the UK for a bit, in the UK that is most likely an order.
- vkou 2y ago
  > and if you'd change tack because of the question alone, it would seem like you really lack self-confidence. Or because the candidate realized that they've messed up, and by dropping the issue can at least salvage the next XY minutes of the interview by not going down the wrong rabbit hole. "Could you tell me more about this?" and "Are you sure about this?" are invitations for providing the rationalization for your answers. "I'm not sure that's a good idea" is a very unsubtle, but polite way of hinting that the you have gone way off the map. As an interviewer, I want my candidates to succeed. I want them to put their best foot forward. I've asked my question over a hundred times, and I've seen many ways that people have solved it, correctly or no. If I'm giving them this suggestion, it means that I know that they are going down one of the many, many wrong garden paths.
  - 317070 2y ago
    I know, I have now spent enough time in the Anglosphere to understand this cultural code. But I do want to emphasize that, yes, if you only know English as a language, that that subcontext is not obvious. In France, professors would literally say "You are wrong." as an invitation to explain yourself better. There are only 500km between London and Paris, but the culture behind these words is the complete opposite.
    - throwaway173738 2y ago
      That phrase in English has a strong connotation of the recipient screwing up somehow though, so I’d probably say “that’s not what I was looking for in this case. Try something else.”
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- hardlianotion 2y ago
  In the UK, it’s not at all cut and dried - depends more on the personality of the person saying it. Could be lazy assertion of control, an attempt to help or an implied challenge. I also think the interview setup and management were poor.
- jorvi 2y ago
  > Yeah, it's an English thing. A literal translation in Dutch would mean "explain yourself here", That's just patently untrue. The literal translation is "ik denk niet dat dat een goed idee is" and the better translation would be "dat is niet de bedoeling". If I got told in an interview "dat is niet de bedoeling" I'd be damn sure to rework my solution because they're clearly trying to coax me towards whatever they're looking for. And in a way it is actually a nice thing of them, because they could just say nothing and fail me out of that round of interviews.
constantcrying 2y ago
Good leadership starts with clearly communicating expectations. If your boss can not say "I want you to use this tool" or "use whatever you seem fit", but instead hints to you as to some possible drawbacks of certain tools he is bad at his job. There are multiple ways to read that suggestion. It can also be read as the interviewer saying he does not believe in the technical depth of the candidate, which can be taken as a challenge. It would also have been better to give a choice of a few selected languages. As that means the interviewer can be much better prepared.
- wakawaka28 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - constantcrying 2y ago
    The way you figure these things out is talking about them. Plenty of people like to solve challenges in weird ways and might even see the suggestions that it is inappropriate as a challenge. >There are not really multiple ways to read "I don't think that's a good idea" in an interview. If your "technical depth" leads you to an inappropriate solution, it doesn't matter if it's right. Just because this solution worked for FizzBuzz and all their rules does not mean it's maintainable. It's obvious to most senior people that such a weird solution is brittle and overkill, even if they can't come up with a rule to break it. But here's a simple one: Output FizzBuzz if all the rules are passed, except if there is a database entry matching the number. Good luck solving that with some bullshit type theory, and good luck to anyone who comes behind this guy to add that rule to his Rube Goldberg code. "What set of tools would you choose to build <normal software project>? And why would you choose them over alternatives?" or "We here at X make use of Y a lot, have you worked with Y or alternatives? What did you think about Y or alternatives?". Both are infinitely more telling about the candidate. Someone's choice for a contrived joke problem will not reflect their choices for a real software project. >For example, I worked with one mostly self-taught guy who wanted to rewrite everything in a niche compiled language, including things that really should be done in scripting languages like Python or shell. Thankfully nobody else let him do that. But deep down I think he didn't accept that he was wrong, and on multiple occasions he expressed that he thought the average person on the team was woefully inexperienced. In fact, it was him that was woefully inexperienced, because he didn't understand how inappropriate and even flat-out wrong his solutions were. I worked with people who liked to solve silly problems in silly ways, but when it came to real projects always preferred mature languages and libraries which focused on long term support, stability and maintainability. The problem with the interview is that instead of talking about the subjects, they themselves want to rely on subtle hints about the candidate. Which may not mean anything.
jajko 2y ago
That's part of good senior/manager skills unfortunately. These sort of subtle hints happen all the time, it looks bad if folks keep missing them. Ie British are famous for them, you'll rarely experience straight talk to the bone.
megous 2y ago
If company is trying to hire people in other countries/cultures to save some buck, they should be mindful that communication may be a bit more of an issue, and try harder, too. Otherwise they'll have the same issue after hiring and not just during interviews. It's not all up to the interviewee to decipher everything. Both should be trying a bit to get to the same understanding, prior to setting off to work. Anyway, the company will be wasting money when the communication works out poorly, so it's ultimately up to them.
plasticchris 2y ago
If the interviewer were better they would instead ask: if no one else on the dev team knows the type system how do you handle that situation? Which gets at the real risk, maybe valid, that someone super smart who isn’t the best communicator will go and make a bunch of code that no one else in the company can reason about. Maybe you get a really nice explanation of the type system, or they are aware this is an esoteric approach but used it anyway because you said anything goes and it’s cool.
lowbloodsugar 2y ago
Interviewer was wrong. Interviewee learned that interviewer is happy to advance incorrect ideas and stifle innovation.
codeguro 2y ago
> I wish all the best to him, but reading between the lines is a useful skill regardless of this specific situation. I disagree. This is not a fair ask, especially for a programming position. Programming and maths in particular puts a lot of emphasis on attention to detail. If he can write it in X, and there's no rule against it, and the job gets done well, then there is no issue. Arguing any further of it is unproductive. He's applying for software development, not for public relations. > "I don't think that will be a good idea" is not a suggestion, it's an order. Then it should be a rule. "Reading between the lines" sounds like an excuse to me for bullshit criteria. It should be written, it should be explicit, and it should be known. If the interviewer is uncomfortable writing it down as a rule then that tells me they KNOW that it's too silly or pedantic. This whole idea of unwritten rules is a double standard designed to weed out neurodivergent or autistic individuals who are more than capable of fulfilling job requirements and, to me, seems like a potentially illegal form of discrimination that violates disability civil rights laws.
Dylan16807 2y ago
They're 18 rules in and now they're going to "hint" that something isn't okay when the candidate directly asked yes or no? Fuck that. And the reason for the hesitance was a worry that it would have trouble with future rules, which turned out to be completely unfounded.

by qsort 2y ago

xnickb 2y ago

Smells like poor management to me. "We'd like you to explore this path and show how you would deal with problems that occur there" is much easier to interpret than the passive aggressive tone of "I don't think .." I would also go with my idea and see how the manager reacted: there is only so much micromanagement I'm willing to tolerate at work. Interviews go both ways.

317070 2y ago

Yeah, it's an English thing. A literal translation in Dutch would mean "explain yourself here", and if you'd change tack because of the question alone, it would seem like you really lack self-confidence. But after living in the UK for a bit, in the UK that is most likely an order.

vkou 2y ago
> and if you'd change tack because of the question alone, it would seem like you really lack self-confidence. Or because the candidate realized that they've messed up, and by dropping the issue can at least salvage the next XY minutes of the interview by not going down the wrong rabbit hole. "Could you tell me more about this?" and "Are you sure about this?" are invitations for providing the rationalization for your answers. "I'm not sure that's a good idea" is a very unsubtle, but polite way of hinting that the you have gone way off the map. As an interviewer, I want my candidates to succeed. I want them to put their best foot forward. I've asked my question over a hundred times, and I've seen many ways that people have solved it, correctly or no. If I'm giving them this suggestion, it means that I know that they are going down one of the many, many wrong garden paths.
- 317070 2y ago
  I know, I have now spent enough time in the Anglosphere to understand this cultural code. But I do want to emphasize that, yes, if you only know English as a language, that that subcontext is not obvious. In France, professors would literally say "You are wrong." as an invitation to explain yourself better. There are only 500km between London and Paris, but the culture behind these words is the complete opposite.
  - throwaway173738 2y ago
    That phrase in English has a strong connotation of the recipient screwing up somehow though, so I’d probably say “that’s not what I was looking for in this case. Try something else.”
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
hardlianotion 2y ago
In the UK, it’s not at all cut and dried - depends more on the personality of the person saying it. Could be lazy assertion of control, an attempt to help or an implied challenge. I also think the interview setup and management were poor.
jorvi 2y ago
> Yeah, it's an English thing. A literal translation in Dutch would mean "explain yourself here", That's just patently untrue. The literal translation is "ik denk niet dat dat een goed idee is" and the better translation would be "dat is niet de bedoeling". If I got told in an interview "dat is niet de bedoeling" I'd be damn sure to rework my solution because they're clearly trying to coax me towards whatever they're looking for. And in a way it is actually a nice thing of them, because they could just say nothing and fail me out of that round of interviews.

constantcrying 2y ago

Good leadership starts with clearly communicating expectations. If your boss can not say "I want you to use this tool" or "use whatever you seem fit", but instead hints to you as to some possible drawbacks of certain tools he is bad at his job. There are multiple ways to read that suggestion. It can also be read as the interviewer saying he does not believe in the technical depth of the candidate, which can be taken as a challenge. It would also have been better to give a choice of a few selected languages. As that means the interviewer can be much better prepared.

wakawaka28 2y ago
[flagged]
- constantcrying 2y ago
  The way you figure these things out is talking about them. Plenty of people like to solve challenges in weird ways and might even see the suggestions that it is inappropriate as a challenge. >There are not really multiple ways to read "I don't think that's a good idea" in an interview. If your "technical depth" leads you to an inappropriate solution, it doesn't matter if it's right. Just because this solution worked for FizzBuzz and all their rules does not mean it's maintainable. It's obvious to most senior people that such a weird solution is brittle and overkill, even if they can't come up with a rule to break it. But here's a simple one: Output FizzBuzz if all the rules are passed, except if there is a database entry matching the number. Good luck solving that with some bullshit type theory, and good luck to anyone who comes behind this guy to add that rule to his Rube Goldberg code. "What set of tools would you choose to build <normal software project>? And why would you choose them over alternatives?" or "We here at X make use of Y a lot, have you worked with Y or alternatives? What did you think about Y or alternatives?". Both are infinitely more telling about the candidate. Someone's choice for a contrived joke problem will not reflect their choices for a real software project. >For example, I worked with one mostly self-taught guy who wanted to rewrite everything in a niche compiled language, including things that really should be done in scripting languages like Python or shell. Thankfully nobody else let him do that. But deep down I think he didn't accept that he was wrong, and on multiple occasions he expressed that he thought the average person on the team was woefully inexperienced. In fact, it was him that was woefully inexperienced, because he didn't understand how inappropriate and even flat-out wrong his solutions were. I worked with people who liked to solve silly problems in silly ways, but when it came to real projects always preferred mature languages and libraries which focused on long term support, stability and maintainability. The problem with the interview is that instead of talking about the subjects, they themselves want to rely on subtle hints about the candidate. Which may not mean anything.

jajko 2y ago

That's part of good senior/manager skills unfortunately. These sort of subtle hints happen all the time, it looks bad if folks keep missing them. Ie British are famous for them, you'll rarely experience straight talk to the bone.

megous 2y ago

If company is trying to hire people in other countries/cultures to save some buck, they should be mindful that communication may be a bit more of an issue, and try harder, too. Otherwise they'll have the same issue after hiring and not just during interviews. It's not all up to the interviewee to decipher everything. Both should be trying a bit to get to the same understanding, prior to setting off to work. Anyway, the company will be wasting money when the communication works out poorly, so it's ultimately up to them.

plasticchris 2y ago

If the interviewer were better they would instead ask: if no one else on the dev team knows the type system how do you handle that situation? Which gets at the real risk, maybe valid, that someone super smart who isn’t the best communicator will go and make a bunch of code that no one else in the company can reason about. Maybe you get a really nice explanation of the type system, or they are aware this is an esoteric approach but used it anyway because you said anything goes and it’s cool.

lowbloodsugar 2y ago

Interviewer was wrong. Interviewee learned that interviewer is happy to advance incorrect ideas and stifle innovation.

codeguro 2y ago

> I wish all the best to him, but reading between the lines is a useful skill regardless of this specific situation. I disagree. This is not a fair ask, especially for a programming position. Programming and maths in particular puts a lot of emphasis on attention to detail. If he can write it in X, and there's no rule against it, and the job gets done well, then there is no issue. Arguing any further of it is unproductive. He's applying for software development, not for public relations. > "I don't think that will be a good idea" is not a suggestion, it's an order. Then it should be a rule. "Reading between the lines" sounds like an excuse to me for bullshit criteria. It should be written, it should be explicit, and it should be known. If the interviewer is uncomfortable writing it down as a rule then that tells me they KNOW that it's too silly or pedantic. This whole idea of unwritten rules is a double standard designed to weed out neurodivergent or autistic individuals who are more than capable of fulfilling job requirements and, to me, seems like a potentially illegal form of discrimination that violates disability civil rights laws.

Dylan16807 2y ago

They're 18 rules in and now they're going to "hint" that something isn't okay when the candidate directly asked yes or no? Fuck that. And the reason for the hesitance was a worry that it would have trouble with future rules, which turned out to be completely unfounded.