4 ms·

I think the ideal goal of an interview is to make a prediction of how happy and productive the candidate will be in the role they are being considered for. In a

I think the ideal goal of an interview is to make a prediction of how happy and productive the candidate will be in the role they are being considered for. In a perfect world, that would be a collaborative effort between the company and the candidate, because they both should care deeply about the accuracy of those predictions. Unfortunately interviews often take on an adversarial/guarded dynamic that reduces the quality of those predictions. I believe that LeetCode style interviews make the predictions worse, and not only because they encourage that negative dynamic. Even if you think that LeetCode evaluates how smart someone is, that's not what companies should be trying to measure. It doesn't matter how smart someone is if those smarts won't be put to good use. One of the smartest people I ever worked with was an amazing fit and launched the team to new heights. Another of the smartest people I ever worked with was a net negative for team productivity because he was such a jerk to people that those people would spend tons of their time and energy to find ways to avoid working with him. Despite all his smarts, he was a terrible match for the role and therefore was not productive. Being a jerk in some environments might even be a positive, but that's part of evaluating fit.

bulbar 15d ago
> Despite all his smarts, he was a terrible match for the role and therefore was not productive. That's basically why companies have multiple interview stages and not only leetcode / pure technical interviews. Needless to say, it's far from perfect. Very far.
raffraffraff 15d ago
I strongly agree with this: > the ideal goal of an interview is to make a prediction of how happy and productive the candidate will be in the role they are being considered for. I'd add two things that should be an obviously component of that way of thinking, but frequently get missed: 1. You need that good candidate as much as they need you. Anecdote: I have found it much harder to hire good people, than to get hired. By "good" I don't just mean smart, I also mean amicable and driven. 2. You do not have to agree with them on everything during the interview. Anecdote: some of my best work has been against the grain. But I am persuasive and passionate when I'm convinced that I see a "better path forward", and if I can convince my peers and leaders to let me shoot my shot, it usually works out. Part of the success may be due to the fact that I have to succeed in order not to look a fool or let people down. (If someone else's venture fails its much easier to shrug). The point being: your candidate may disagree with you. But may be also be right. Or wrong, but letting them invest their whole self into the enterprise may be better value. But this resonates the most with me: > because he was such a jerk to people that those people would spend tons of their time and energy to find ways to avoid working with him I've seen this so, so much. And it wrecks teams. When I say "let people disagree", again, this is when the best and worst of people emerges.
- rented_mule 15d ago
  > You do not have to agree with them on everything during the interview. Absolutely! When I'm the interviewer, I look for a genuine opportunity to amicably express disagreement with the candidate in order to see what it's like to navigate that with them. It's a great sign when we both end up enjoying learning from each other as a result of the exchange.

bulbar 15d ago

> Despite all his smarts, he was a terrible match for the role and therefore was not productive. That's basically why companies have multiple interview stages and not only leetcode / pure technical interviews. Needless to say, it's far from perfect. Very far.

raffraffraff 15d ago

I strongly agree with this: > the ideal goal of an interview is to make a prediction of how happy and productive the candidate will be in the role they are being considered for. I'd add two things that should be an obviously component of that way of thinking, but frequently get missed: 1. You need that good candidate as much as they need you. Anecdote: I have found it much harder to hire good people, than to get hired. By "good" I don't just mean smart, I also mean amicable and driven. 2. You do not have to agree with them on everything during the interview. Anecdote: some of my best work has been against the grain. But I am persuasive and passionate when I'm convinced that I see a "better path forward", and if I can convince my peers and leaders to let me shoot my shot, it usually works out. Part of the success may be due to the fact that I have to succeed in order not to look a fool or let people down. (If someone else's venture fails its much easier to shrug). The point being: your candidate may disagree with you. But may be also be right. Or wrong, but letting them invest their whole self into the enterprise may be better value. But this resonates the most with me: > because he was such a jerk to people that those people would spend tons of their time and energy to find ways to avoid working with him I've seen this so, so much. And it wrecks teams. When I say "let people disagree", again, this is when the best and worst of people emerges.

rented_mule 15d ago
> You do not have to agree with them on everything during the interview. Absolutely! When I'm the interviewer, I look for a genuine opportunity to amicably express disagreement with the candidate in order to see what it's like to navigate that with them. It's a great sign when we both end up enjoying learning from each other as a result of the exchange.