Don’t do interviews, do discussions • Hacker News Board

Re: Don’t do interviews, do discussions

#51

Post by chrisabrams » Sun, Nov 07, 2021, 8:54 PM UTC

sillysaurusx wrote: post #35

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.

In all likelihood, you've rejected phenomenal candidates and you didn't even realize it.

This is why I have candidates do a take home. We’ll (speaking across entire career not just current employer) have people who do mediocre in the video interviews but then turn in a great take home submission. Not everyone performs their best on the spot. I’ve hired so many talented people just by trying alternative formats to the traditional “today you’re gonna interview with 6 people hope you did your leet code.”

Re: Don’t do interviews, do discussions

#52

Post by tchalla » Sun, Nov 07, 2021, 8:54 PM UTC

01100011 wrote: post #30

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…

> 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.

That's a big IF.

Re: Don’t do interviews, do discussions

#53

Post by mattnewton » Sun, Nov 07, 2021, 8:55 PM UTC

kube-system wrote: post #47

mattnewton wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder how much "interviewing" is really testing the kind of performance anxiety that people without other good offers yet have. I experience this too as I not just as I progressed in my career, but even within one batch of interviewing. I've always tried to batch as many interviews as I can. By the third interview I am feeling much less anxious and just perform much better and by the fourth or fifth I am nailing t…

I interview and I explicitly adjust for this in my interviews. Anxiety is not too hard to pick up on, especially if you know family and friends who have it, and I’ll give people the benefit of the doubt in the case that I do notice it. Many people with social anxiety are excellent writers and I make sure we always have a written portion of our evaluation to give them.

I also do interviews, but find it is really hard to adjust for this. If a person repeatedly locks up and you give them space to come down from their anxious position for example, you simply get less signal than the person who confidently talks through their thought process the whole time and arrives at the right answer.

Is the written portion the way to offset this in your experience? In addition to being hard to squeeze into typical 45 minute interview chunks, I’m not sure that would calm my anxiety personally. But I’m certainly willing to try.

Re: Don’t do interviews, do discussions

#54

Post by xwdv » Sun, Nov 07, 2021, 8:56 PM UTC

Imagine a hellish interview process where multiple candidates are brought in for a “discussion” at the same time and based on the impression they give one could get the job.

Re: Don’t do interviews, do discussions

#55

Post by rsj_hn » Sun, Nov 07, 2021, 8:58 PM UTC

austincheney wrote: post #45

The biggest challenge with software interviews is that you don’t know when to lie. The process is maximally biased and so you have maximum incentive to lie. The only reason to not lie is reputation damage in the highly unlikely case you are caught. In the end you are either hired for more money or you are just wasting your time as a candidate. Most of us really want to be as honest as possible, not just because we ar…

> So, just lie.

I think this is bad advice. I have never lied in an interview. I've also never had a job not offered to me if I made it to the in person interview part. This isn't to say that I have magical job-getting powers, but only that not lying has not hurt my chances.

In one job I applied for, I didn't have a lot of domain knowledge, but I had knowledge in an adjacent domain and wanted to to jump over to this one. I told this to the interviewer up front, and the interview was a bit rough but I managed to do OK. What I did was explained my thinking process and in many cases arrived at the right solution, or close to it. In others I didn't. The interviewer was sufficiently happy with my ability to solve problems on the spot that they hired me. It wasn't hard to acquire that new domain knowledge, but I had to work at it. I also took a level down in the new job, but they increased my pay over my old job, so I didn't care about the leveling. Long term, that helped me as my salary ended up being higher as a gained levels in the new place.

So being honest about not being the perfect fit has worked out for me. I think it can work out for you, too.

Re: Don’t do interviews, do discussions

#56

Post by tchalla » Sun, Nov 07, 2021, 8:59 PM UTC

pezzana wrote: post #20

> Here are some tips for converting interview into the discussion as an interviewer ... Two ideas follow. I don't think they'll work very well. Here's the #1 thing you can do as a candidate to turn the interview into a discussion: Come prepared with some interrogative-led questions. These usually begin with the words "who"; "where"; "what"; "when"; and "why". Then ask your questions at appropriate times. A good time…

> ere's the #1 thing you can do as a candidate to turn the interview into a discussion: Come prepared with some interrogative-led questions.

Yes, the candidate should come prepared to (1) resolve Leetcode Medium/Hard problems with obscure data structures and algorithms, (2) have a Github profile and demonstrate their side projects and (3) have best instances of their past careers to answer behavioural questions in the STAR format. In the same time, we want to demonstrate how the candidate "thinks of their feet" and now we have interrogative style questions. The way I see it - we don't really require interviewers at all. I don't see any benefit of an interviewer. We can replace them with robots.

Re: Don’t do interviews, do discussions

#57

Post by kube-system » Sun, Nov 07, 2021, 9:02 PM UTC

austincheney wrote: post #45

The biggest challenge with software interviews is that you don’t know when to lie. The process is maximally biased and so you have maximum incentive to lie. The only reason to not lie is reputation damage in the highly unlikely case you are caught. In the end you are either hired for more money or you are just wasting your time as a candidate. Most of us really want to be as honest as possible, not just because we ar…

Maybe this works in big companies, but many small companies that I’ve worked at, you’d be caught, even lying on silly little things. The people reading your resume are the same ones you’re going to be working beside, and they’ll absolutely ask you about things you said you knew.

And once they find out that you lied about your volunteering experience at your local little league team, your whole resume goes under the microscope. I’ve seen it happen.

Re: Don’t do interviews, do discussions

#58

Post by nickjj » Sun, Nov 07, 2021, 9:10 PM UTC

danielvaughn wrote: post #23

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 sp…

This is exactly how I would approach interviews too. I say "would" because I mostly do contract work and sometimes sit in on interviews when other companies are trying to hire someone. I've always thought to myself almost exactly what you wrote. I think having a low pressure conversation with someone can get you almost everything you need to be comfortable hiring someone or at least trialing them out with contract work to begin with.

You can absolutely get a good sense of their tech skills from just chatting and you can also get a decent feel for how they communicate in general which IMO is more important than tech skills once you reach a certain point.

Re: Don’t do interviews, do discussions

#59

Post by osrec » Sun, Nov 07, 2021, 9:14 PM UTC

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 can steer conversation towards stuff I care about, and if they insist on being annoying, just thank them for their time and leave.

I like this approach. Stops you from being painted into a corner, and if you are, you can still leave with your dignity. Some interviewers can be on such a power trip, which can make things feel pretty horrible for the interviewee.

Re: Don’t do interviews, do discussions

#60

Post by jfengel » Sun, Nov 07, 2021, 9:16 PM UTC

jstx1 wrote: post #27

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?

The problem with "decent at programming" is that it's often only a fraction of the job. You rarely get formal specifications and clear orders. Nearly everything involves discussion of the user's needs or eliciting the circumstances of a bug.

Real programming is very little like they teach in school and even less like coding competition. Being good at programming is great, and mandatory, but if you can't also have a conversation then you can't actually do most jobs.