The Utter Uselessness of Job Interviews

> what am I to do when I have to share that I maintained a Rails 4.0.x app for 16 months and was unable to upgrade it even it to 4.1.x because the previous team did a horrific job?

The reason I personally care about the skill of talking about bad coworkers tactfully is that I think it correlates with being able to navigate tricky workplace fuckups without making a big political mess that I have to clean up. The way I would phrase the above situation is:

"I inherited a Rails 4.0 app, and I wanted to upgrade it to Rails 4.1 so that we could take advantage of feature X. This wasn't on our roadmap, so I spent a lot of my own time looking into the feasibility and working on it in my personal time. However, it eventually became clear that too much of the legacy code would have to be totally redone, and there wasn't enough of a business upside."

> I am a firm believer of Einstein's saying "If you can't explain it to a 5-year old then you don't understand it"

Me too! Love this.

I think you may be misconstruing the argument here. I agree that any number of people will fit -- but the problem is, what if interviews aren't even selecting "a" right person for the job?

I think one issue is that interviews are often confused about whether they are checking credentials or checking for fit. That is, are they looking for people who will thrive in the environment, or are they checking that someone has the skills they say.

Google's interviews may well boil down to "prove you're smart enough to work here at this smart company with smart people like me. "

Other examples:

"Oversell yourself so you pressure yourself into high standards and thus end up working late often out of guilt"

"The job is easy but with a lot of specific untransferable domain knowleedge. Prove that you're a company man. "

"Most of us aren't sure what we are doing, but there's value in our companies general direction. Can you seek out help and thrive in such unknown conditions?"

These simplifications are actually for the most part "good" and is actually reflective of how the manager sees the world. Google is unique in that the direct manager doesn't have as much control, but the manager spirit is a belief in giving smart people freedom.

That gets you in, but your immediate manager may end up not believing in this. Michael O Churches story comes to mind. In some cases, the manager having no say in the process is bad as there isn't a good fit.

A manager who believes in treating people like slaves and people who want to be treated like slaves for a specified amount of money is actually a good fit. Someone who wants to be a cog but is given freedom is paralyzed by indecision and vice versa, the person is stifled.

It's hard to see this in the US because there's a strong bias for the free/smart paradigm and all companies have to outwardly present this shared value. In china though "i'm just a code monkey" is said a lot because despite having little to no say in hours worked or project assigned, software pays much mich hogher than other jobs. It's a deal they accept because there aren't any better ones. Or more specifically, because there are too many other people who will take the deal.

Only when a majority of people demand a base standard of life can you prevent a race to the bottom inflicted by employees themselves.

The key is to see through the game that companies arr required to play (at least in the us) and track down the exact team you want to be a part of, figure out the actual culture (having a taxonomy beforehand is useful) and then deciding if it's for you. (Given your BATNAs)

Because of this game, all marketing about being great places to work is BS because thats the ONLY thing they can say. I say mostly because the marketing is a result of a real cultural shift in realizing how to effectively manage knowledge workers.

So silicon valley does in fact have a more progressive attitude to management styles unlike the east coast which is more about play books, but it's fsr far less than what you would think. The majority of managers still subconsciously reject new team managment styles, and shitty interviews are a result of having preferred filters but NEEDING to dress them up in all sorts of covolution.

I fully agree, and that's exactly what I am doing -- even if an offer from another company ends up only being a leverage to force a raise in my current company (see below for clarification). However, I am taking it slow and I am patient (even though NOT being able to randomly go to the cinema or a restaurant with my girlfriend is getting on the nerves of both of us lately; money is tight and I'm very unhappy with my current compensation) because I don't want to replace one problem with the same problem in another company. So I am picky, I am clear in my requirements, I don't accept terms I know will make me hate the job, and I am perfecting my negotiating skills during this entire process.

CLARIFICATION on the leverage remark: it's my opinion that 99% of the time leveraging an offer from another company that wants to give you more money, to make your old company give you more money, is a huge mistake. Most businessmen HATE being strong-armed, or, to use a milder language, hate being shown that their employees have power over them, and this makes them hate you even if they very much need you in a business sense. They end up actively looking for a way to get rid of you, even if it costs them more money and/or stress in the long-term. I've witnessed it.

SOURCE: 4 of my stupider younger acquantainces from 7-12 years in the past. And an observation from my first job. After I "strong-armed" my first employer to double my then pretty measly salary, he went on a hunt to replace me (even though it took him around a year to really do it), but I was smart enough to detect the signs and resigned long before he had the chance. No regrets.

The issue with silicon valley interviews is that it's leading a new paradigm of management styles that deal with knowledge and creative work

This shift MUST be accepted by everybody ornostracism is risked. (Like trump supporters)

But paradigm shifts take time and the majority of managers still want cogs. But instead of filtering dor cogs they have to dress the filters up as filtering for a "i give smart people freedom team" and the convoluted mental gymnastics needed for this creates shitty interview processes.

All "well this technique worked for us" stories are mostly Not useful because tehy are just N=1 stories about managers using their preferred filters.

The issue isn't with the filters themselves (all sorts exist) but with a culture that obligates everyone to out on false facades.

People who just want to be paid and can work well need to pretend to be passionate. Managers who want well-paid cogs need to pretend to promote individualistic thinking etc...