Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Interviews vs. auditions

ryanholiday.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 106 posts

Re: Interviews vs. auditions

#21

Post by raverbashing »

jpatokal wrote: post #19
raverbashing wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> However, if you attempt this at a standard FAANG job interview, it is emphatically not going to work. Agreed, do you know why? They're looking for yes men. (Ok, maybe not the A later in the alphabet - not sure today) Now if you meet someone "higher up the chain" outside of a formal setting, this might work.

No, they're looking for concrete evidence of having and being able to apply a well-defined set of skills. One of the things you learn pretty fast as an interviewer is that charisma and attempts to pitch yourself tend to correlate poorly with aptitude, and an interview that focuses solely on predefined technical questions is by design impervious to yes men.

> that focuses solely on predefined technical questions

Unless you have recruiters (or even engineers) ignoring your answer because it doesn't match exactly to what you were expecting.

And it's not impervious to yes men, you can have a technical savant and a yes man at the same time.

Re: Interviews vs. auditions

#22

Post by scarface74 »

jpatokal wrote: post #2

Taking control audition style may work if you're a consultant trying to convince a client to hire them, but you had better know their business backwards and forwards, and unless you're in a very well defined space (like their football coaching example), you probably don't. However, if you attempt this at a standard FAANG job interview, it is emphatically not going to work. There's a set of questions you need to work…

There are millions of companies out there that are not part of the big big 5. I don’t need to know their business backwards and forward and I probably won’t know enough about their internal pain points until I get there. But I’ve noticed over the years, that most companies that are interested in hiring me, have the same sort of issues when it comes to trying to deliver their product.

Re: Interviews vs. auditions

#23

Post by Ensorceled »

I’ve noticed an increasing number of candidates using this kind of “take control of the interview” approach. It’s reached the point of having candidates talking over top of me during phone screens trying to wrest control of the conversation away.

I’ve never hired someone who does this. I’m not interested in how you’re going to rework my team or rewrite our software.

Interestingly, when interviewing potential peers or CEOs, I’m kind of expecting them to do this.

Re: Interviews vs. auditions

#24

Post by kelvin0 »

k__ wrote: post #12
jpatokal wrote: post #2

Taking control audition style may work if you're a consultant trying to convince a client to hire them, but you had better know their business backwards and forwards, and unless you're in a very well defined space (like their football coaching example), you probably don't. However, if you attempt this at a standard FAANG job interview, it is emphatically not going to work. There's a set of questions you need to work…

"audition style may work if you're a consultant trying to convince a client to hire them" That's one of the main reasons I'm self employed. Getting a job is mostly doing dumb interviews, tests and crap. Getting a project is mostly telling the client that I can do it for an amount of money they find okay.

Totally agree, as a veteran Software Dev, been consulting for 2 years now.

Most customers want some degree of assurance that you can solve their problem and that you also have a track record of proven success (no FizzBuzz BS).

The downside is that most customers are also non-technical, so it becomes challenging (for me at least) to explain some concepts which impact the ongoing project. This is where I think building trust within a business relationship is important, and why you should avoid any customers who distrust you and your credentials. Because the bottom line is : if you can't explain all the finer details to someone, but they trust your judgement and ability, everything else becomes much easier.

Re: Interviews vs. auditions

#25

Post by spodek »

I teach and coach people to get jobs through performance and it works.

Schools teach people to react, take tests, and show how great they are. For a posted opening, you're presenting yourself as a commodity -- a slightly shinier one, you hope. It's based on compliance.

Most analytical, geeky types got a lot of schooling. After decades of it, most people have learned that model without awareness of alternatives.

If you want to avoid challenges in life and just get a job so you can retire 50 years later with nothing remarkable in between, that strategy works.

What Ryan described -- to audition -- is standard in other fields, such as sports, acting, singing, and other active, social, emotional, expressive, performance-based (ASEEP) fields. No actor won an oscar for his or her GPA. No athlete won a championship for being president of a student club.

In ASEEP fields, your performance matters. Sadly, many in business continue to think and act on a compliance-based model. Those who start from a performance-based model find and create opportunities to excel.

I'll always remember how a client told me he met a guy running a business in a field he wanted to move into. He told me he first got to know the guy to make sure he'd like working with him. He then told him his passions and hobbies in that field, then that he had zero professional experience, and then, as he told me, "I led him to hire me."

That's leadership. The guy hired him, saying "I can teach you this field, but I can't teach getting it and you get it." (Incidentally, what he called "getting it" is what I taught him -- you can teach it, just not through a compliance-based model.) So he got paid to learn the new field. Not long after he started new initiatives in that business.

Re: Interviews vs. auditions

#26

Post by rc_mob »

Ensorceled wrote: post #23

I’ve noticed an increasing number of candidates using this kind of “take control of the interview” approach. It’s reached the point of having candidates talking over top of me during phone screens trying to wrest control of the conversation away. I’ve never hired someone who does this. I’m not interested in how you’re going to rework my team or rewrite our software. Interestingly, when interviewing potential peers or…

Article says to politely take control. Seems like your candidates forgot the polite part of the equation.

Re: Interviews vs. auditions

#27

Post by js8 »

jpatokal wrote: post #2

Taking control audition style may work if you're a consultant trying to convince a client to hire them, but you had better know their business backwards and forwards, and unless you're in a very well defined space (like their football coaching example), you probably don't. However, if you attempt this at a standard FAANG job interview, it is emphatically not going to work. There's a set of questions you need to work…

> However, if you attempt this at a standard FAANG job interview, it is emphatically not going to work.

It's kind of "offense is the best defense" method.

I haven't done many interviews, but I found a good strategy is to have some questions about the technology the company is using. Then you can both show interest and turn the interview on the head, instead of them asking you technical questions (for which you might not know the answer), you ask technical questions that show you have done some basic research and have basic understanding.

I have used a similar strategy on some oral exams at the university.

Many people (especially specialists) are not natural examiners, and are delighted to talk about their field with someone who has some understanding of it, regardless of the fact that they should conduct an interview or exam.

But then again, it takes a certain type of character to do it (since I am a curious person, it comes somewhat naturally). You can't really fake it, you have to put in some effort of learning about the technology in question in advance.

Re: Interviews vs. auditions

#28

Post by scarface74 »

k__ wrote: post #12
jpatokal wrote: post #2

Taking control audition style may work if you're a consultant trying to convince a client to hire them, but you had better know their business backwards and forwards, and unless you're in a very well defined space (like their football coaching example), you probably don't. However, if you attempt this at a standard FAANG job interview, it is emphatically not going to work. There's a set of questions you need to work…

"audition style may work if you're a consultant trying to convince a client to hire them" That's one of the main reasons I'm self employed. Getting a job is mostly doing dumb interviews, tests and crap. Getting a project is mostly telling the client that I can do it for an amount of money they find okay.

True early on in your career or you’re interviewing for large company, you have to go through the crap. I avoid large companies like the plague. At some point in your career, your resume can start speaking for you and your salary requirements are going to automatically start filtering out positions where they are going to ask “what’s the difference between a class and an object?” and start asking questions about previous projects, how you architected them, etc.

One company I worked for, I came in expecting the standard questions but the first question I was asked was what was my 90 day plan to create a modern development department - I didn’t know he was looking for a team lead. Another, they were using AWS but none of the developers knew how to take advantage of AWS services fully.

Re: Interviews vs. auditions

#30

Post by paulie_a »

fouc wrote: post #3

Would reframing the developer "technical interview" as an audition instead create better expectations for everyone?

Yes I would absolutely avoid a company that called it an audition. I am not an actor and should not have to perform for a company... It's basically saying "we want you to jump through even more hoops than you already did"

You need to also sell me on why I would want to work at your company. "Audition" is just insanely redicolous

Post reply on HN