Live data from Hacker News

Red flags I saw while doing technical interviews

blog.interviewing.io

161–170 of 394 posts

Re: Red flags I saw while doing technical interviews

#161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Long enough for you to wrap up your other interviews. I think the biggest issue is when the time limit isn’t moveable. If you’re finishing up interviews next week and the time limit cannot be moved, then that is a problem. Inflexibility from the get-go is a bad way to start a working relationship.

You can always accept the time critical offer and continue interviewing and then jump if a better one comes through. There is no reason to be nice or considerate to companies, they will drop you in hot second if it is convenient for them.

Accepting an offer without an intent to follow through is fraud. If you think your counter-party is dishonest or ill-intentioned, then you should refuse to enter into any agreement with them.

Re: Red flags I saw while doing technical interviews

#162

As someone with 20+ years in the experience, red flag #1 for me is being expected to go through a skill-testing technical whiteboard (or similar) coding exercise before even having a deeper discussion about the role and whether there's a fit, etc. I've seen this many times and I find it baffling: I already have a very high paying high quality job, I want you to sell _me_ on the position before demanding I do stressfu…

I think this viewpoint is common from senior engineers but not entirely merited.

(FWIW, I am also a senior engineer, and I have seen this play out from both sides of the table.)

Sometimes folks overestimate their value as senior engineer for certain types of companies, and under-appreciate the risk companies take in hiring an employee. Large companies, for example, generally do not need yet another L6+ that cannot get their hands dirty. They usually have plenty of folks that fit that role already. Additionally, senior engineers are expected to mentor junior engineers, and doing so often requires whiteboard technical skills.

I cannot tell you the number of L6/L7/L8 interviews I've done where it was clear the person had no idea how to write simple algorithms, or put together a basic design. They may be great (or not) at the job they have been doing for years, but that sort of information is not accessible to the interviewing company. If the skills existed, it is a red flag if the candidate let them languish. Or perhaps those skills never existed, and that's a very large risk the company ($100,000s/year) is taking, especially for companies (cough FANG cough) that have a "you must be smart if you made it here" attitude around letting people go.

If one agrees to interview somewhere, it should come with the understanding that it is a mutual exchange. The company is not doing the interviewee a favor, and the interviewee is are not doing the company a favor. Both sides are expending work, which involves some tradeoffs and annoyances. As an interviewer, throwing in a technical question early is an easy sorting check to make early in the interview process before it gets into the nuanced details around role fit.

Re: Red flags I saw while doing technical interviews

#163

Role clarity is a huge one in my book. I've turned down numerous offers because when I asked what the specifics of my day to day job were going to be, the answers weren't clear. From the secret FAANG that likes to pretend what they are doing is defense contractor level top secret, and even after your hired you might not know what your actually working on, to the big companies where its clear the hiring manager only h…

> Role clarity is a huge one in my book.

Yes, if you want to be a cog in a machine.

That said, it seems you're complaining about FAANG-type companies. These guys are hiring "top talent" only as a defensive measure, so that upstart competitors don't get them. It's not expected for "top talent" to actually contribute to something useful.

Re: Red flags I saw while doing technical interviews

#164
post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IMO it's not really 'not important' as much as 'not honest'. Someone, somewhere at that company chose to hire someone... and they know what they want them to do. Why aren't they telling me? Here I am sitting down expecting to divulge all sorts of things / do a dance, but they can't tell me what they want... There's all sorts of reasons to not tell anyone / corporate circumstances, but it's a really bad foot to start…

You're probably right that sometimes people are hiding something from you. But I think a lot of the time it's more like "I have 10 people doing a bunch of things that vary over time and on a day to day basis, and what each of them does specifically really depends on what they are good at and what comes up. I really want those 10 people to be able to do 10% more of that confusing mix of activities than they are curren…

Yeah I don't think of it as 'deceptive', but more so just not through through or even clearly sharing what the situation is.

For me "we've got like 20 things going on, here's a little about them, so that kinda stuff, but I've no idea day to day how it will play out" is actually plenty honest if that's the case.

Re: Red flags I saw while doing technical interviews

#165
post #113
post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I've turned down numerous offers because when I asked what the specifics of my day to day job were going to be, the answers weren't clear. Same, from FAANG companies. The feel that I get is more like, FAANG companies don't even know what you're going to do. They just want to hire top talent and figure out what you're working on later. They want someone "smart" who can ultimately work on any team, since whatever tea…

That's because FAANG has a hiring department, that's responsible for hiring. They also each have ~2,000 engineering teams, some of which may or may not have headcount. And once someone is accepted, teams with open headcount look at that person, and make an offer. The shortens the time that it takes to fill headcount, because there is a constant pipeline of ready candidates. This also means that you won't get yanked a…

Sure. I mean, I get the reasoning/justification behind it. But I'm generally not interested in jumping through all of the toxic tech interview process hoops without first knowing what's at the other side; I've learned that lesson the hard way. And I think that probably filters a certain type of talent away from FAANG companies.

Re: Red flags I saw while doing technical interviews

#166
post #103

Role clarity is a huge one in my book. I've turned down numerous offers because when I asked what the specifics of my day to day job were going to be, the answers weren't clear. From the secret FAANG that likes to pretend what they are doing is defense contractor level top secret, and even after your hired you might not know what your actually working on, to the big companies where its clear the hiring manager only h…

> I've turned down numerous offers because when I asked what the specifics of my day to day job were going to be, the answers weren't clear. Same, from FAANG companies. The feel that I get is more like, FAANG companies don't even know what you're going to do. They just want to hire top talent and figure out what you're working on later. They want someone "smart" who can ultimately work on any team, since whatever tea…

> They just want to hire top talent and figure out what you're working on later

FB reached out to me twice with a specific project and position proposal (SWeng/lead). YMMV

Re: Red flags I saw while doing technical interviews

#167
Good observations. I have a few things I watch out for on top of that:

- Foul language during the interview. I once had a guy tell me "I will not tolerate faggotry in my project". I never got to know what exactly he meant by that.

- Asking about compensation expectations before further explaining the role and responsibilities, even though the ad itself had compensation brackets, so it can be assumed that the candidate accepts them.

- Having "one person teams". Usually means that the company is understaffed and there's no real chance for any time off. Tolerable only in start-ups where this is to be expected.

- When having multiple interviewers, obvious signs that they don't communicate with each other. I recall one situation where I had to relay info back and forth between interviewers.

Re: Red flags I saw while doing technical interviews

#168

Role clarity is a huge one in my book. I've turned down numerous offers because when I asked what the specifics of my day to day job were going to be, the answers weren't clear. From the secret FAANG that likes to pretend what they are doing is defense contractor level top secret, and even after your hired you might not know what your actually working on, to the big companies where its clear the hiring manager only h…

Of the big tech companies, I've worked at Facebook, Google, & Apple. I've still not quite cracked what's different about Apple culturally that they seem to be more immune to this problem. The only main difference I can spot is I don't recall ever encountering a PM at Apple. To do planning engineers would propose improvements, new features, etc. These were bubbled up. Then executives would be responsible for building…

I worked at Microsoft for a few years and later as a contractor at AT&T for about 2 years. I saw the 2 extremes as far as PMs go.

My PMs at Microsoft were all good at tracking tasks/projects and managing blocking issues. At a minimum they saved me a lot of headache having to answer why a task was late when I was blocked by a dependency. They also had quite a few technical PMs, my brother was actually a PM there before I started after getting his Bachelors and Masters from MIT.

AT&T's PMs were a totally different story. Not only did the PM team outnumber our dev and test teams, most of them were tasked with being product owners for insanely small features. Consider having a PM literally responsible for how a light switch works in home automation, that's the level they broke it down to. Some of the PMs lacked skill or experience, but all were expected to do very little of value and were considered to be successful if they were in meetings nonstop to take notes and give them to the next team in line.

PMs can be vital parts of a tech business, but only when they are given real responsibility and expected to create value rather than countless piles of noted and calendar invites.

Re: Red flags I saw while doing technical interviews

#169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A reasonable period is: You tell them up front your ideal timeline, that you have a couple of other irons in the fire (if you do), and you keep them informed of the progress of those other fires. And they do the same for you. Maybe you can't get a timing that works for both sides together, but that is OK. The pressuring is what isn't.

I've been the recruiter in this position. I think it is unethical to string your runners-up along in this situation. You're essentially taking up their (and your) valuable time with little chance at success. Exploding offers are the least bad solution. Give them 48-72 hours, with a small extension if they are currently talking to someone else.

If you don't like being a runner-up then you should negotiate with the candidate so that your company ends up in a more competitive position.

Re: Red flags I saw while doing technical interviews

#170
post #2

I was hoping this was red flags from the interviewer side. Yeah I'm hoping a blog will give me some feedback.

Aren't "red flags" from the interviewer side pretty obvious? Most interviews are just noise with very little signal. Some basic red flags: * Poor ability to self-reflect or demonstrate that they've learned things from their experiences * Lack of or otherwise poor critical thinking * Inability to communicate * Inability to display core competency in the skills required for the job, especially when challenged (I don't…

The worst candidates know the exact way to act in the interview process. Once they're in, it's really difficult to get them out. I've seen some pretty terrible behaviour, all performed absolutely fine in interviews. So much so that I believe that interviews are only useful to establish basic suitability and that most companies should hire loosely with a long probationary period. Employees that don't perform would be let go.
Post reply on HN