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

31–40 of 106 posts

Re: Interviews vs. auditions

#31

Post by davnicwil »

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…

I think that's because it's very hard to get this strategy right. In some interviews, it may not be possible due to the way the interview process is set up, and in particular the magnitude of information asymmetry.

I think getting it right hinges on two things:

1) Does the interviewer actually have a concrete objective that you are qualified to help them achieve -- even if they themselves aren't necessarily aware of it or have it top of mind. 2) Can you identify that objective either ahead of time or in the interview process, and in a polite yet direct manner convince them that you can help them achieve it.

If neither of these are true, it is bound to come off poorly. Whiteboard/puzzle based 'general intelligence assessment' style interviews don't lend themselves to this. Wishy washy job descriptions don't lend themselves to this. Hiring processes influenced by politics rather than need (i.e. where a manager is disincentivised to hire someone better than they are) don't lend themselves to this.

If a majority of candidates who try this strategy with you aren't able to pull it off well, perhaps step back and take a look at your recruitment/interview processes and see if you could actually help the good ones impress you.

I'm not saying I've done this right in the past, quite the contrary. For me the ideal interview is me simply describing a problem my team has, and the interviewee educating me on how to solve it and why they are the right person to do so (though usually the fact they are able to do the former implies the latter). I've tried to format interviews more like this over time and I have personally found better results as a consequence.

Re: Interviews vs. auditions

#32

Post by teddyh »

spodek wrote: post #25

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 yo…

> I can teach you this field, but I can't teach getting it and you get it.

— Man, like the animals, is meant to live together with others like himself. But the meaning of belonging to such a group is found in the comfort of silence and the companionship of solitude.

— Is that why you let me enter and taught me?

— We taught you, young man, because you already knew.

Master Kan and Kwai Chang Caine, Kung Fu, season 1, episode 11, The Praying Mantis Kills

Re: Interviews vs. auditions

#33

Post by Silhouette »

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.

Indeed, but someone willing and able to do this well probably isn't applying to work at Facebook today, they're applying to be co-founder or employee #1 of a business that might be the next Facebook.

Re: Interviews vs. auditions

#34

Post by frostmatthew »

fouc wrote: post #3

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

That's the analogy I use when people complain that whiteboarding doesn't mimic/approximate they day-to-day job. If you're the casting director for a play you're going to have auditions, you're not going to cast people based (solely) on their resume and having a conversation about their acting background. But auditions are very different than an actual performance: there's no audience or costumes or props, the lighting is completely different than what it will be, you're reading from a script, you may be the only person on stage while the other roles are read offstage, you're being accompanied by a piano instead of a full pit orchestra, you're mostly standing in one place instead of moving to established blocking, and so forth. The point of an audition isn't to mirror performance night, it's to get an idea if you're capable of acting/singing/dancing/whatever. Likewise the purpose of whiteboarding isn't to mirror the day-to-day work, it's to get an idea of your problem solving capabilities (some might argue it's also to see if you actually know how to code, but personally I feel that's what the technical phonescreen is for).

Re: Interviews vs. auditions

#35

Post by whitexn--g28h »

scarface74 wrote: post #22
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.

It's the big 4 now. See Enron, and Anderson.

Re: Interviews vs. auditions

#36

Post by whitexn--g28h »

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.

I usually just blaze through the technical questions, FizzBuzz takes 1-2 minutes, 2-SUM maybe 5 minutes. Rarely do they have more than 15 minutes of technical questions unless you have problems with how fast you can write on a board. I've also asked to skip an easy question so that I would have more time for the audition phase.

Re: Interviews vs. auditions

#37

Post by watwut »

rc_mob wrote: post #26
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.

Taking control and insisting on it is not polite, unless you the boss. It is pretty bad trait for college in cooperative environment.

Re: Interviews vs. auditions

#38

Post by mafro »

fouc wrote: post #3

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

An interesting idea! As shown by the sibling comments, there might be some trouble communicating what this means to candidates..

Re: Interviews vs. auditions

#39

Post by kylnew »

As an engineer I think this is best interpreted as a recommendation to ask a lot of questions when you are given the chance. Take it as an opportunity to demonstrate a greater understanding and care for the opportunity than just the scope of your role. Ask about culture, about challenges, competitive positioning in the marketplace etc.. I try to ask questions that demonstrate a lot of compassion for team dynamics and business objectives. It’s never led me astray.

Re: Interviews vs. auditions

#40

Post by emeraldd »

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…

You bringing up a very important distinction here. When hiring someone to lead it is extremely important for that person to naturally fall into that role. When hiring someone to do the work that needs to be done, you want them to be able to understand what they are supposed to do, offer alternatives if they think there's something wrong, but ultimately do what needs to be done. Taking control in that second situation isn't necessarily a good thing.
Post reply on HN