Interviews vs. auditions • Hacker News Board

Re: Interviews vs. auditions

#11

Post by fab1an » Fri, May 11, 2018, 9:02 AM UTC

I doubt this would work in any more structured interview process for a regular job at a larger company (with the likely expection of VP+ level jobs), but it could be very effective for interviewing at startups, especially when they're small enough for you to be interviewed by one of their founders.

A good way to do this is probably not to take charge immediately upon concluding the small talk, but to simply ask whether the interviewer would be interested to set aside some time to see some ideas you had prepared for their business (shows binder)

Re: Interviews vs. auditions

#12

Post by k__ » Fri, May 11, 2018, 9:04 AM UTC

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…

"audition style may work if you're a consultant trying to convince a client to hire them"

That's one of the main reasons I'm self employed.

Getting a job is mostly doing dumb interviews, tests and crap.

Getting a project is mostly telling the client that I can do it for an amount of money they find okay.

Re: Interviews vs. auditions

#13

Post by raverbashing » Fri, May 11, 2018, 9:15 AM UTC

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.

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.

Re: Interviews vs. auditions

#14

Post by chatmasta » Fri, May 11, 2018, 9:16 AM UTC

k__ wrote: post #12

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…

"audition style may work if you're a consultant trying to convince a client to hire them" That's one of the main reasons I'm self employed. Getting a job is mostly doing dumb interviews, tests and crap. Getting a project is mostly telling the client that I can do it for an amount of money they find okay.

As a consultant you are much more in control of your working relationships than as an employee. A consultant has many clients; an employee only has one employer. That alone provides sufficient leverage to dictate the terms of the role, which is a major advantage of self-employment.

Re: Interviews vs. auditions

#15

Post by occamrazor » Fri, May 11, 2018, 9:28 AM UTC

raverbashing wrote: post #13

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. 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.

> They're looking for yes men.

Or maybe they hire thousands each year and want to ensure some consistency in the candidate selection criteria. This could result in hiring more yes-men, but the _intention_ may be different.

Re: Interviews vs. auditions

#16

Post by jaggederest » Fri, May 11, 2018, 9:28 AM UTC

chatmasta wrote: post #14

k__ wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"audition style may work if you're a consultant trying to convince a client to hire them" That's one of the main reasons I'm self employed. Getting a job is mostly doing dumb interviews, tests and crap. Getting a project is mostly telling the client that I can do it for an amount of money they find okay.

As a consultant you are much more in control of your working relationships than as an employee. A consultant has many clients; an employee only has one employer. That alone provides sufficient leverage to dictate the terms of the role, which is a major advantage of self-employment.

I think it's basically the same deal PG is always talking about: Nobody is willing to pay triple for an employee which is actually three times as productive, but a consultant can honestly charge three to five times as much in order to provide equivalent return on investment.

I also find that in general, people who won't listen to an employee are excited about collaborating with a consultant - even when you're the same person making the same contributions.

I find it pretty frustrating - I have long-term views and I want to make a significant, long term impact on the companies I work for, and being a consultant means it's all about quarterly results. That being said, I'll take sober consideration from day one over "time over grade equals seriousness" any day.

Re: Interviews vs. auditions

#17

Post by someonenice » Fri, May 11, 2018, 9:31 AM UTC

baxtr wrote: post #9

Well... this article is merely saying (with many many words) that it’s way better to show up to interviews and important meetings with utmost preparation than unprepared.

Its more about what you are preparing for.

Generally people prepare well on the technical details (algorithms, programming etc..) and solve the problems that are put forward by the interviewer.

Here, you prepare well on the real problems faced by the company (say scaling beyond a million user) and then outline the solutions that you have for that.

Re: Interviews vs. auditions

#18

Post by _pmf_ » Fri, May 11, 2018, 9:42 AM UTC

fouc wrote: post #3

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

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

If companies would frame it as such, I could choose to avoid these companies. So for the candidate, it would have a tangible benefit.

Re: Interviews vs. auditions

#19

Post by jpatokal » Fri, May 11, 2018, 10:44 AM UTC

raverbashing wrote: post #13

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. 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.

Re: Interviews vs. auditions

#20

Post by spicymaki » Fri, May 11, 2018, 11:05 AM UTC

While I am not sure this would work in every situation, I appreciate the main thrust of the article: treat the interview as audition, come in prepared to talk about how hiring you will improve the business, differentiate yourself from the other interviewees.