Live data from Hacker News

Don’t do interviews, do discussions

thinkingthrough.substack.com

111–120 of 432 posts

Re: Don’t do interviews, do discussions

#111
post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> "honestly I'm really happy where I am, but every man has his price, what can you offer?" does wonders. I would be very surprised if you say literally this and get results. No self-respecting company or manager is going to invest in talking to you if you describe yourself so overtly mercenary. Obviously, when you're happy where you are, money is part of the equation to get you to move, but making it seem like the o…

This is total loserthink. Saying literally that will assuredly get results. Mature managers and owners are well aware that hiring is a commercial act and that commercial acts are about money. Signaling that you’re willing to walk from the negotiation is key to getting good compensation. Strategically, you wait until they’ve already invested thousands of dollars in labor costs interviewing you first.

Strategically then, wait until you are 4 months in the job, when they’ve paid the commission to the recruiter (finding and contacting interesting people is a job, paid ~20% of the gross salary), and THEN you raise the price.

Expect to receive a flying chair. If you get out of it alive, you’ll get a better salary.

Re: Don’t do interviews, do discussions

#112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you think this is a response to tech salaries getting higher, and more unqualified people who interview well applying for jobs? A couple years ago we were hiring data scientists, and started with a chat with the hiring manager, and then at some point a technical evaluation. We attracted business grads and others for the position (in addition to cs folks), and a lot of them talked a good game but couldn't do basic…

I think it's a result of the cost of technical testing reducing to a negligible amount, and then as you say, an unhealthy relationship with risk aversion. If any company can open a funnel to the entire timezone or world and put everyone through a HackerRank test they bought off the shelf, they have sunk no real cost by the time they interview someone and potentially no shortage of people who'll go through with it. Th…

> I think it's a result of the cost of technical testing reducing to a negligible amount

This is a good point that I overlooked and definitely agree is also present. The same thing is happening with other types of interviews - I have seen companies hiring now where the candidate is asked to record video answers to prompted question, that from what I remember are evaluated by some kind of machine learning. They can open up the funnel without having to do anything (except forgo candidates that either have some self respect or are not desperate for work)

Re: Don’t do interviews, do discussions

#113

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 you…

so there is no glue code at FAANG? Or you have overqualified folks doing, and getting bored, and jumping ship between FAANG every 1.5 years...

Re: Don’t do interviews, do discussions

#114
post #7
post #5

Not the main topic of the article, but in my opinion an interview/discussion also is supposed to answer another (third) question: Does the company fulfill the expectations of the potential employee? Not only the candidate has to sell their own service/skill during the interview/discussion, the company is being evaluated, too.

This so much. This would be on the syllabus of the missing Employment 101 course. Very few people I've seen try to evaluate the company as much as they're being evaluated. We all grow up with the false, ingrained assumption that it's some sort of one-way privilege for you, the employee, to rent your time/body/mind to the employer.

That’s because in most interviews for most people the company holds far more power than the applicant.

For those who have done well in tech and don’t need to take the next job offered to pay for the next months food bill, because they have the savings, because they have 2 or 3 offers already, we may have the luxury of interviewing the company.

Most people aren’t in that situation, especially early in the career

Re: Don’t do interviews, do discussions

#115

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…

It's because you're coming from a position of abundance. Works wonders in dating as well. The trick is realizing you don't actually need to have abundance to take a position of abundance.

Re: Don’t do interviews, do discussions

#116

> Use "We" instead of "you" because it feels more inclusive and it is. For example, ask a question as "Suppose we have this problem to solve. How would we go about doing that?" Oh god how much I hate this! It’s misused by (some) managers so much these days, it’s infuriating. For me it has the very opposite effect than the intended inclusivity.

On a tangent - to this day I can't stomach when Windows talks about itself in plural ("We are setting things up"). It started around Windows 10 and I hate it. Ugh...

Well windows is plural…

Re: Don’t do interviews, do discussions

#117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's a result of the cost of technical testing reducing to a negligible amount, and then as you say, an unhealthy relationship with risk aversion. If any company can open a funnel to the entire timezone or world and put everyone through a HackerRank test they bought off the shelf, they have sunk no real cost by the time they interview someone and potentially no shortage of people who'll go through with it. Th…

> I think it's a result of the cost of technical testing reducing to a negligible amount This is a good point that I overlooked and definitely agree is also present. The same thing is happening with other types of interviews - I have seen companies hiring now where the candidate is asked to record video answers to prompted question, that from what I remember are evaluated by some kind of machine learning. They can op…

Yes, absolutely. I've bumped into literally random people out in the world, outside of tech, who have experienced and complained (unprompted) about those creepy AI interviews and they find it dystopian.

I've been asked at least 3 times to do a similar thing, and every time I've just refused, it's a few steps too far for me to even participate in, even though I am almost completely out of options at this point.

Re: Don’t do interviews, do discussions

#118
Don't do interviews, do take home tests. Do what's representative of the work you will be doing. I highly doubt even at google that it's a life or death situation that you correctly code an obscure algorithm in 30 minutes. Folks think you "cheat" on take home, but all they are doing is selecting for folks who "cheat" by being able to memorize massive amount of leetcode questions, its still a poor signal. 6-8 400-500K interviewees, likely costs more than 2 folks reviewing a take home for 2 hours.

Re: Don’t do interviews, do discussions

#119
Slightly OT - on hiring, not interviewing - I recently realized what could improve hiring, and it's simultaneously a great and terrible idea.

How does hiring work today? First, the employer sets out a "careers" page (which varies quite a bit, even within the same company, even for the same job title!) which includes the following banal information: A job title, part-time/full-time/remote/location-based, a company values blurb, a paragraph about the general responsibilities of anyone with this job title, a tech stack, a list of prerequisites that nobody will ever meet "or relevant experience", and maybe the benefits and perks.

Nowhere does it describe the actual project they're working on, their timelines, what kind of situation you're walking into, what the specific team's culture is like, whether there's a strong team lead or everyone is just a genius, if they're culturally diverse, what their daily workflow is, whether their OKRs have sustainability or social responsibility goals, or feedback from team members. Is the project they're working on greenfield or brownfield? What's the architecture? Will you be on-call? Will you be supporting customers or working in a silo? What is the reporting structure like? Career advancement / lateral movement? Training? Do they go to happy hour on Fridays? Is there an LGBTQ ERG?

And from the other side, the company knows next to nothing about who's applying. After all the candidates have played tech buzzword bingo in their resumes, the company (or worse, recruiter) pulls out a divining rod and tries to pick up the one or two candidates who they imagine are a match culturally, technically, and professionally. If you don't know somebody inside the company, or a recruiter doesn't push you as one of the two candidates they've found locally, you might as well be a translucent blob of Arial 12-point font.

How can we connect employees and employers in a meaningful way that isn't an arbitrary screening process? Well it seems to me that somebody has already come up with an answer: dating sites.

Please, stop throwing things at me and hear me out! What are jobs? Relationships between an employee and an employer. Well, dating sites are masters at finding the intersections where people match, in order to find good relationship matches. You can create a curated list of multiple-choice weighted questions, and ask the other person to fill them out, with a small text blurb to elaborate on your answer. The most common/popular ones automatically bubble up for everybody as default questions.

This combination of quantitative and qualitative matching would allow people to quickly see which employees/employers are the best match. We may still need a way to ascertain technical skill or professional experience, but at least the people who come in the door would appear to be the closest matches to what we want. Will there be some catfishing? Sure, but there already is with today's hiring mess! Can somebody please make the OkCupid of hiring? I'm waiting to open my account.

Re: Don’t do interviews, do discussions

#120
post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is total loserthink. Saying literally that will assuredly get results. Mature managers and owners are well aware that hiring is a commercial act and that commercial acts are about money. Signaling that you’re willing to walk from the negotiation is key to getting good compensation. Strategically, you wait until they’ve already invested thousands of dollars in labor costs interviewing you first.

Strategically then, wait until you are 4 months in the job, when they’ve paid the commission to the recruiter (finding and contacting interesting people is a job, paid ~20% of the gross salary), and THEN you raise the price. Expect to receive a flying chair. If you get out of it alive, you’ll get a better salary.

I assume you’re being sarcastic, but if you change 4 months to a year and play hardball in your first review it’s not a terrible plan. This is assuming you spent that first year creating big value.
Post reply on HN