6 ms·

I interview 3-4 times/month in the bay area, as a way of keeping myself in tune with the interview process for when I do want a new gig, seeing what new tech tr

I interview 3-4 times/month in the bay area, as a way of keeping myself in tune with the interview process for when I do want a new gig, seeing what new tech trends are popping up in interviews (and what specific gotcha questions are popular), and so on. Generally I don't intend to take the job. It could certainly be interpreted as trolling the process, but I've taken the opportunity to note things I didn't love about the company when I decline offers (I see it as the mirror of wanting a company to be specific about weaknesses if they choose not to hire me), including open or noisy office space, the appearance of high pressure to work unnecessarily lengthy hours, poor clarity in equity granting, and lack of diversity.

Nicholas_C 12y ago
>I interview 3-4 times/month in the bay area, as a way of keeping myself in tune with the interview process for when I do want a new gig Sounds like you're wasting a lot of people's time and resources.
- shawn-furyan 12y ago
  Companies could obviate the need for this sort of reconnaissance by being more open about pay expectations and honest about experience requirements. They aren't because they perceive a benefit to holding an information advantage over applicants. If this information advantage wasn't widely sought by firms, then there would be no advantage to interviewing several times a month. So really, any given firm could avoid their time being wasted by the gp. But presumably they would rather have their time wasted than to give up their information advantage, so it doesn't really make sense to lay all the responsibility for wasting people's time at the feet of the gp. Most candidates just accept the information disadvantage. The gp doesn't, but that's merely a rational response to the incentives put forth by the job market.
  - geebee 12y ago
    This is an aside, but I think there's a strong case to be made for publishing salaries, with names. I know it's an intimidating step, but this information is easily found on line for public service workers. The sky hasn't fallen, and there are a number of real benefits. One possible angle - perhaps openly publishing payroll info (name, title, pay) should be a requirement for all companies that receive an H1B or other work visa. Keep in mind, there is precedent. Information about how much a house sold for is public. Imagine if, when you were selling your house, you only had a bit of information gleaned from conversations with neighbors here and there, whereas the buyer had a massive database at his or her disposal with exact prices for every house sold in your neighborhood in the last 50 years. You'd be at a massive disadvantage. That's the situation employees are in.
    - hga 12y ago
      As of 2001 is was a requirement to post the salary of H1-B employees. That how while at Lucent I found out the one who was if anything better at the particular job we were doing was earning $48K to my $80K :-(.
      - geebee 12y ago
        That alone is pretty important information, though I'd go one step farther and require all employee payroll data to be published.
        vacri 12y ago
        Yeah, that doesn't work. I used to be really open with what I earned, because I didn't care if people knew. Turns out that sometimes people can get a bit resentful if you do similar jobs and you earn a little more than them. And sometimes people that do similar jobs and earn a little or a lot more than you seem to take this as a social signal and you get a new little social wall between you as you're not on their level. I had a friend who worked in a job doing social research, and one of the jobs was talking to people about childhood sexual abuse that they had, a job that was only done by the more experienced staff. This is random cold-calling to strangers, and it was handled very delicately, reminding the person at regular intervals that they can stop the survey any time and that all questions were optional. He said the odd thing was that if someone started the survey, they generally completed the 20-minute interview, and it was only in the demographics section at the end that people bridled a little - at the 'salary range' question. Some people don't care about who makes what salary. A lot of people use it to varying degrees as a social status signaller. I've tried being open about mine, and these days, I'd prefer not to share, though I still do with close friends who I know aren't wanky about salary.
        AlexandrB 12y ago
        > Yeah, that doesn't work. I used to be really open with what I earned, because I didn't care if people knew. Turns out that sometimes people can get a bit resentful if you do similar jobs and you earn a little more than them. And sometimes people that do similar jobs and earn a little or a lot more than you seem to take this as a social signal and you get a new little social wall between you as you're not on their level. This is really a consequence of a culture that confuses material compensation with personal worth and success. I wonder if this is different outside of the western/North American job market.
- hacknat 12y ago
  Certainly her/his own. I can understand doing this once or twice a year, maybe once a quarter, but 3-4 times per month! If she/he is going through traditional loops how are they getting all that time off of work?
- dogecoinbase 12y ago
  They're hardly wasted -- I derive a great deal of value by exploiting the current extreme inefficiency in the method by which most companies hire.
  - hsod 12y ago
    I think the poster you replied to was saying that you are wating other people's time by doing interviews in bad faith. If you think they deserve to have their time wasted because their interview processes are inefficient... well, I guess I'll just say that I disagree with you strongly.
    - Retric 12y ago
      As long as he is open to changing jobs then he is not wasting their time. If anything there wasting his time by not being up front about salary info etc.
- revelation 12y ago
  So is the whole send in your CV, do a bunch of phone interviews, never hear back spiel. It's a market, if you find people are consistently wasting your time, you probably just don't have anything good to offer.
- rational-future 12y ago
  How do you feel about companies interviewing say 20 people for a single position?
nbroyal 12y ago
Loosely related, how do you pull this off? Given that interviews effectively take up whole days, I feel like it'd be really tough for me to routinely work four day weeks and everyone at the office be OK with it.
- k-mcgrady 12y ago
  >> "Given that interviews effectively take up whole days" Really? I find they are either an hour in the office or a few 30 minute phone calls. At least in tech. I know in other fields they have all day group interviews with lots of team building stuff but I haven't encountered that in tech (well at least with startups).
  - mahyarm 12y ago
    Onsite interviews are consistently 4-6hr chunks at many places in the bay area.
    - k-mcgrady 12y ago
      Wow. What actually takes place in that time?
      - johnny_utah 12y ago
        In my experience, I have had 3-6 hour long blocks with 1-3 members of the company, technical and non-technical. It typically starts with 5-10 minutes of chit-chat about my background and the company, then we do a technical exercise or a series of personality questions (for instance, explaining something technical to an employee in marketing to see if we could work together and if I could communicate across departments). After that, we wrap up with ~10 minutes of Q&A. Since it takes up so much time, it's important to get the phone screen right to not waste time on both sides. I have heard of companies that will have you pair program for a whole day instead of doing whiteboard questions.
        k-mcgrady 12y ago

Nicholas_C 12y ago

>I interview 3-4 times/month in the bay area, as a way of keeping myself in tune with the interview process for when I do want a new gig Sounds like you're wasting a lot of people's time and resources.

shawn-furyan 12y ago
Companies could obviate the need for this sort of reconnaissance by being more open about pay expectations and honest about experience requirements. They aren't because they perceive a benefit to holding an information advantage over applicants. If this information advantage wasn't widely sought by firms, then there would be no advantage to interviewing several times a month. So really, any given firm could avoid their time being wasted by the gp. But presumably they would rather have their time wasted than to give up their information advantage, so it doesn't really make sense to lay all the responsibility for wasting people's time at the feet of the gp. Most candidates just accept the information disadvantage. The gp doesn't, but that's merely a rational response to the incentives put forth by the job market.
- geebee 12y ago
  This is an aside, but I think there's a strong case to be made for publishing salaries, with names. I know it's an intimidating step, but this information is easily found on line for public service workers. The sky hasn't fallen, and there are a number of real benefits. One possible angle - perhaps openly publishing payroll info (name, title, pay) should be a requirement for all companies that receive an H1B or other work visa. Keep in mind, there is precedent. Information about how much a house sold for is public. Imagine if, when you were selling your house, you only had a bit of information gleaned from conversations with neighbors here and there, whereas the buyer had a massive database at his or her disposal with exact prices for every house sold in your neighborhood in the last 50 years. You'd be at a massive disadvantage. That's the situation employees are in.
  - hga 12y ago
    As of 2001 is was a requirement to post the salary of H1-B employees. That how while at Lucent I found out the one who was if anything better at the particular job we were doing was earning $48K to my $80K :-(.
    - geebee 12y ago
      That alone is pretty important information, though I'd go one step farther and require all employee payroll data to be published.
      - vacri 12y ago
        Yeah, that doesn't work. I used to be really open with what I earned, because I didn't care if people knew. Turns out that sometimes people can get a bit resentful if you do similar jobs and you earn a little more than them. And sometimes people that do similar jobs and earn a little or a lot more than you seem to take this as a social signal and you get a new little social wall between you as you're not on their level. I had a friend who worked in a job doing social research, and one of the jobs was talking to people about childhood sexual abuse that they had, a job that was only done by the more experienced staff. This is random cold-calling to strangers, and it was handled very delicately, reminding the person at regular intervals that they can stop the survey any time and that all questions were optional. He said the odd thing was that if someone started the survey, they generally completed the 20-minute interview, and it was only in the demographics section at the end that people bridled a little - at the 'salary range' question. Some people don't care about who makes what salary. A lot of people use it to varying degrees as a social status signaller. I've tried being open about mine, and these days, I'd prefer not to share, though I still do with close friends who I know aren't wanky about salary.
        AlexandrB 12y ago
        > Yeah, that doesn't work. I used to be really open with what I earned, because I didn't care if people knew. Turns out that sometimes people can get a bit resentful if you do similar jobs and you earn a little more than them. And sometimes people that do similar jobs and earn a little or a lot more than you seem to take this as a social signal and you get a new little social wall between you as you're not on their level. This is really a consequence of a culture that confuses material compensation with personal worth and success. I wonder if this is different outside of the western/North American job market.
hacknat 12y ago
Certainly her/his own. I can understand doing this once or twice a year, maybe once a quarter, but 3-4 times per month! If she/he is going through traditional loops how are they getting all that time off of work?
dogecoinbase 12y ago
They're hardly wasted -- I derive a great deal of value by exploiting the current extreme inefficiency in the method by which most companies hire.
- hsod 12y ago
  I think the poster you replied to was saying that you are wating other people's time by doing interviews in bad faith. If you think they deserve to have their time wasted because their interview processes are inefficient... well, I guess I'll just say that I disagree with you strongly.
  - Retric 12y ago
    As long as he is open to changing jobs then he is not wasting their time. If anything there wasting his time by not being up front about salary info etc.
revelation 12y ago
So is the whole send in your CV, do a bunch of phone interviews, never hear back spiel. It's a market, if you find people are consistently wasting your time, you probably just don't have anything good to offer.
rational-future 12y ago
How do you feel about companies interviewing say 20 people for a single position?

nbroyal 12y ago

Loosely related, how do you pull this off? Given that interviews effectively take up whole days, I feel like it'd be really tough for me to routinely work four day weeks and everyone at the office be OK with it.

k-mcgrady 12y ago
>> "Given that interviews effectively take up whole days" Really? I find they are either an hour in the office or a few 30 minute phone calls. At least in tech. I know in other fields they have all day group interviews with lots of team building stuff but I haven't encountered that in tech (well at least with startups).
- mahyarm 12y ago
  Onsite interviews are consistently 4-6hr chunks at many places in the bay area.
  - k-mcgrady 12y ago
    Wow. What actually takes place in that time?
    - johnny_utah 12y ago
      In my experience, I have had 3-6 hour long blocks with 1-3 members of the company, technical and non-technical. It typically starts with 5-10 minutes of chit-chat about my background and the company, then we do a technical exercise or a series of personality questions (for instance, explaining something technical to an employee in marketing to see if we could work together and if I could communicate across departments). After that, we wrap up with ~10 minutes of Q&A. Since it takes up so much time, it's important to get the phone screen right to not waste time on both sides. I have heard of companies that will have you pair program for a whole day instead of doing whiteboard questions.
      - k-mcgrady 12y ago