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

Don’t do interviews, do discussions

thinkingthrough.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 432 posts

Re: Don’t do interviews, do discussions

#21

Post by dudul »

OJFord wrote: post #14
dudul wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> you're not going to advance your career at a place you don't do your best in Hard disagree. I've worked at a lot of places where I was frustrated, didn't give a damn and felt like I was completely underperforming. And yet, my career has been advancing both in terms of title and earnings. So, unless you have a different metric for "advancing your career" I disagree. That being said, I agree with your main point :)

But how do you know you wouldn't have advanced more if you'd been doing better? It seems sort of trivially true to me, excepting any workplaces that are simultaneously soul-sucking and growth-prospect-full, in such an outsized way that it's better to underperform there than overperform elsewhere...

Irrelevant. The parent didn't say "optimally advance your career".

Re: Don’t do interviews, do discussions

#22

Post by dudul »

Daishiman wrote: post #9
dudul wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> you're not going to advance your career at a place you don't do your best in Hard disagree. I've worked at a lot of places where I was frustrated, didn't give a damn and felt like I was completely underperforming. And yet, my career has been advancing both in terms of title and earnings. So, unless you have a different metric for "advancing your career" I disagree. That being said, I agree with your main point :)

You can advance your title and earnings while also simultaneously not lose your will to live. I've done the whole money+title things at places where my work barely made any impact. You'll pay for it later on; 40+ hours of weekly grind takes a toll on your mind and body.

I dont disagree. The parent's only metric was "advancing your career". Not being happy or feeling fulfilled or anything else.

If the only thing you focus on is career advancement, you don't need to be at a great place that makes you the most productive.

Re: Don’t do interviews, do discussions

#23

Post by danielvaughn »

I tried the discussion approach instinctively in most of the interviews I performed. I tried to look at it as if both the interviewee and I are evaluating each other to see if we're a match. Kept the conversation light hearted and mostly focused on general technology trends relevant to the job. Same as if you were at a meetup or something and had just met someone new.

The only difference is that I would drill into specifics in certain areas, but keeping it conversation-style so that it doesn't feel like a pointed question. Usually I found it to be pretty easy to see a persons level of knowledge because they tend to hit a certain depth where they aren't able to keep the conversation flowing, so you have to pull back up into their more familiar territory.

The only drawback with this approach is that I have to be really mindful about potentially being biased. Pointed questions aren't as much fun but they're easier to approach from an objective viewpoint.

Re: Don’t do interviews, do discussions

#25

Post by jstx1 »

monocasa wrote: post #19
jstx1 wrote: post #15

"Discussion interviews" can suck because they're a lie. You're still being examined, and now you have to pretend that you aren't being examined in addition to performing well. Some of my best interviewing experiences have been when as part of the interview I ended up having a discussion about something. But the interview didn't explicitly start with that format in mind. Some of the worst interviewing interviewing exp…

Discussion style interviews aren't about pretending they're not interviewing you though.

The title is "Don't do interviews, do discussions". That's repeated in the main text. The author seems to be concerned about the feeling of "I am being evaluated". I think that's counterproductive because it's false - being evaluatated is the whole point of the conversation and it's better if both sides were honest about it instead of lying to each other and playing games.

Re: Don’t do interviews, do discussions

#26

Post by CalRobert »

I've finally reached a point in my career where I have a great paying job and like it well enough, and really don't give a shit what interviewers think.

Paradoxically, I think I interview a lot better. I can steer conversation towards stuff I care about, and if they insist on being annoying, just thank them for their time and leave. Though this might just be a result of being pickier about who I interview with.

If nothing else, it's _amazing_ for negotiating. "honestly I'm really happy where I am, but every man has his price, what can you offer?" does wonders.

Re: Don’t do interviews, do discussions

#27

Post by jstx1 »

arketyp wrote: post #11

I've been involved in interviews for new hires a couple of years now. I'm pretty sure I could have the interviewee talk about cucumbers for 10 minutes and I could determine if its a good hire or not. It's all about getting insight about how the person thinks.

If I'm kind of stiff in conversations with strangers but decent at programming, does that mean that your company doesn't have a place for me?

Re: Don’t do interviews, do discussions

#28

Post by gpderetta »

CalRobert wrote: post #26

I've finally reached a point in my career where I have a great paying job and like it well enough, and really don't give a shit what interviewers think. Paradoxically, I think I interview a lot better. I can steer conversation towards stuff I care about, and if they insist on being annoying, just thank them for their time and leave. Though this might just be a result of being pickier about who I interview with. If no…

I had similar experiences as well. When there are no stakes you can be very relaxed during the interview and have all the cards during negotiations.

Re: Don’t do interviews, do discussions

#29

Post by FalconSensei »

bigmattystyles wrote: post #13

I do the discussion approach, but my goal is to make sure I 'give candidates enough rope to hang themselves'. I also make extremely clear that it's ok to tell me that they don't know or aren't sure. A lot of times, I never ask the question that makes someone look bad, I just let them talk. No interview system is good, but after cycling through many interview styles, this is the one I have found to be the least bad. O…

In my company we use hackerrank for the coding interviews, but more as a whiteboard, since we are not doing in-person interviews anymore. We say that syntax is not the most important thing, we are not going to run the code, and that anything they would usually check on google/SO, they can just ask us.

Re: Don’t do interviews, do discussions

#30

Post by 01100011 »

Depends on the role and the candidate. If I'm hiring for a lower skill position and the candidate has a strong resume I just might want to verify the resume and confirm they have a basic grasp of the relevant skills.

If I'm hiring for a high-output FANG job, you bet your ass we're going to the whiteboard. Sure, I hate it too(on either side of the table), but it's not too much to ask to prove that you can think on your feet and solve hard problems if that's what the job is.

I generally tend to have discussions because I'm not very confrontational and also because I hate the modern coding interview. After moving to a FANG though, I now understand why the process is so hard. I also get that a lot of folks are frustrated because they've been told their whole career that they're smart, and they probably are, but for some roles the bar is just set higher. My 30 year old self, who thought he was hot shit because of all the praise I got for doing basic work(shake and bake linux embedded work, deep dive bugfixing, mostly writing glue code), was in no way qualified to exist in the world I (barely manage to) work in now.

Post reply on HN