Technical Skills Are Overrated. Focus on Your Attitude

For example, I've met a whole spectrum of viewpoints framed in reaction to the severe and growing housing crisis (esp. in the SF bay area) on this very website, some of which I could see acting as a strong filter on whether I would want to collaborate with someone

> During the final five minutes, when candidates can ask questions, Chen posed as many as he could fit in (I let the interview run over).

I'm probably making a big deal out of a few words here, but how much enthusiasm am I really suppose to have towards a company and culture where I'm generously allowed (/s) to ask questions during the final 5 minutes?

> In training new bar-raisers at Amazon

I don't know who this "bar-raiser" term applies to, hopefully everyone? Everyone wants to be a bar-raiser, but I bet most of them are trying to raise the bar in ways that are important to them but not valued by the company. How much enthusiasm am I suppose to have for a company that doesn't value the things I do? Yet when I accept that my bar-raising efforts are not appreciated by the company and instead try to just work for a paycheck and nothing more, then I have the attitude problems the article warns against.

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that Chen was a new developer? I was enthusiastic like Chen once, but 20 years in the industry ruined me, and it will ruin Chen too I bet.

A true piece of advice here is that the most important thing you can do in an interview is make the interviewers like you. Chen lacked the required skilled, everyone "agreed that he missed the technical bar across the board", but they offered him the job. Why? Because they liked him. Making the interviewers like you is the most important thing you can do.

Being naively enthusiastic and subservient to power is a way to do this. Consider faking it if you really need the job.

I also suggest thinking out loud through any technical discussions or problems you work on. Imagine a good Twitch streamer playing a video game you've played before, you know how to solve the problems, and it's quite enjoyable watching someone else work though the same problem again, especially if they are vocal about it in an engaging way. The interviewers know the problems, and they enjoy watching other people work though the problems that they already know how to solve. It's more fun for the person doing the interview too; lower the tension, get a conversation flowing, show that you can collaborate on problems well, that's more important that stoically solving the problem in silence.

The people hiring almost always assume an air of "I am the ruler by which all things are measured" and since I represent the prototype of a perfect and desirable employee, I would expect someone I hire to have very similar properties.

It's human nature. It's also why, if you don't look, behave, and share a lot of commonalities with the upper executives, you will likely never get invited to be an upper executive. And make no mistake, the upper level is a club, and they are really choosing the people they want to be in the club.

I realize you didn't say that exactly, but this is what the tone of OPs article is. IF you are a lowly IC, no matter how skilled, you must be the good subservient. The King demands a cheery disposition.

But the King is allowed to behave in any way he chooses. Capriciously firing people. Yelling, demanding, berating, snap judgements, etc...