return to table of content

Interviewing the Interviewer: Questions to Uncover a Company's True Culture

CharlieDigital
56 replies
1d9h

I ask these indirectly.

    "What types of people tend to succeed and do well with your team?  What types of people tend to struggle in your team?"
(Am I going to be a culture and work/life balance fit?)

    "What are your main objectives in the next 6 to 12 months?  What's your plan to meet those objectives?"
(Do these guys have their act together and an actual plan? Is the work going to be interesting?)

    "How do you see the candidate in this role contributing to that objective?"
(Are their expectations for this role realistic? Do I fit those expectations? Do I want to be on that ride?)

    "Tell me about how the team collaborates and coordinates work"
(Am I going to be stuck in 1 hour all-hands daily "stand-ups" every day?)

cj
51 replies
1d6h

One question candidates like to ask me: "What's your biggest challenge over the next year? Next 5 years?"

and then.. "How is this role contributing toward solving that challenge?" (Sometimes people replace "challenges" with "vision" or "goal")

These question catches me off guard sometimes. But if I were the candidate, they are great questions to expose whether a company is hiring this role to fix a problem (if so there are probably very specific expectations) or are they hiring the role to make a good thing better.

Dirty secret about interviews: there are very few questions a candidate can ask that would leave a negative impression. You can literally ask "Are you profitable?" or "What is the turnover rate of your team?" or "If you had to improve our team culture, what's one thing you would change?" or even "I've worked at a lot of companies that don't know what they're doing. What's your plan?"

On the interviewer side, there's also very few questions candidates won't answer. I always ask what their salary expectations are, where they are in the process with other companies, how they like to be managed, etc --- occasionally there's someone who's dodgy with these questions, but 95% of candidates are extremely transparent. I return the favor by happily answering any questions a candidate asks. It's a big decision on both sides to hire someone or accept an offer, so no point in putting on a facade.

mcny
31 replies
1d6h

Thank you for the insightful comment.

One small nit though

I always ask what their salary expectations are

I thought we were supposed to never answer this question. Why do you even bother asking this question? You have a budget for any role, right? Why not share this information instead of asking people how much they want? Does it matter if I want a million dollars a year?

cj
24 replies
1d5h

Why do you even bother asking this question?

If someone is asking for $250k and we're budgeting $150k, I don't want to waste their (and my) time.

throwaway6977
19 replies
1d5h

If that's the case perhaps you could, I don't know, state that up front and save everyone some time...

cj
15 replies
1d5h

(Last reply I’ll post here): I guess just to be ultra clear so there’s no ambiguity.

At our company no candidate talks to anyone at our company before talking to our 3rd party recruiter who screens all candidates before they make it to us. The recruiter has short 15-20 min pre-screening calls with candidates and she’s responsible for weeding out candidates who are likely to not be a fit.

A major category to evaluate is mutual compensation expectations (what are they expecting to be paid, what are we expecting to pay).

I don’t have full visibility into how our recruiter articulates this part of the screening call. She says some candidates don’t have a salary in mind, in which case she shares the lower bound of our range to feel them out.

All roles have a salary range, e.g. could be $130-160k. We don’t just come out and say that, otherwise everyone will want the top end of the range, even if (in our opinion) their experience matches closer to the bottom or middle of the range.

It’s an art, not a science. My goal is to not overpay for a role if we don’t have to. (Important: overpay doesn’t mean underpay!) more importantly, I want the person we’re hiring to be happy with the compensation. I don’t want to hire someone who’s going to quit in 6 months for a higher paying role.

It’s a negotiation and both sides are trying to find the “market rate” through the process. You can be bitter about this fact, but it’s a simple reality in business. That’s just how things work.

FireBeyond
5 replies
1d2h

otherwise everyone will want the top end of the range, even if (in our opinion) their experience matches closer to the bottom or middle of the range.

My perspective of this, sometimes stated, sometimes not, is that if I'm getting the offer I should at least be in the top 50% of the range.

Why?

How many candidates did you interview, with all their experiences, some more than me, some less than me, but you chose me, which means you saw me as the highest caliber candidate, but you also see me as "closer to the bottom of the range"? Barring other contributing factors, "does not compute".

cj
4 replies
1d1h

I can’t speak for every company.

As a 12 person engineering team, we really need a strong team lead or someone who we can put on a management track over the next 2-3 years (SWE to Lead to EM to Director to VP). We prefer to promote from within rather than hire those roles directly.

So, the top end of our range for engineering roles right now is reserved for people with management potential because we’re willing to pay a premium for that, but doesn’t mean we will reject good individual contributors.

(This is my last reply on this thread, the debate could go on, e.g. “how do you know if someone has management potential”, etc - hiring and finding a job is an art, not a science, no right answers, nothing is perfect)

FireBeyond
2 replies
1d1h

Actually, that's a good perspective that I hadn't considered. I can appreciate that.

I can't really find much justification for hiring in the lower third of a band, but I could see what you've said, or middle third being the default, upper third.

I usually don't like the "we prefer to leave room for raises and such", because that's trite - you set the bands, you can adjust them.

(I also get - and have been burned by companies who didn't - the need for a pipeline: not every engineer can be a senior engineer, you need juniors to be able to grow and evolve and be the seniors when those people become EMs etc.)

jghn
0 replies
15h29m

As an EM I've also had circumstances where the person we're interviewing is borderline between two levels. They rate out as very promising, but really should be leveled at the lower level. However, for a variety of reasons they need to be leveled at the higher level.

And in those cases when it seems worth it, I've offered the higher level at the lower end of the range.

dbalatero
0 replies
17h26m

Also, do those raises ever come...?

simoncion
0 replies
17h16m

We prefer to promote from within rather than hire those [management] roles directly. ... So, the top end of our range for engineering roles right now is reserved for people with management potential...

So, disclose that.

You clearly have two ranges, one for folks who are decent tech folks, and one who are decent tech folks who can (and are willing to) do management.

Disclose both pairs of numbers, along with the caveat that the company is very, very highly unlikely to hire (and pay for) an external management-potential employee.

eric-hu
2 replies
1d3h

I’m currently job seeking. Some companies apply to the letter of this but still share almost no information. I’ve seen salary ranges like 140-280k. In essence that tells me the company still wants to not overpay like the parent comment said.

duskwuff
0 replies
19h8m

Hell, I've seen companies post jobs with "salary ranges" spanning all the way from barely minimum wage to C-suite. It's just lazy compliance.

BurningFrog
0 replies
1d3h

Maybe that just reflects the fact that some engineers do far more valuable work than others.

massung
1 replies
23h44m

...e.g. could be $130-160k. We don’t just come out and say that, otherwise everyone will want the top end of the range, even if (in our opinion) their experience matches closer to the bottom or middle of the range.

I hope you can see the hypocrisy in this statement: you want the candidate to take on the risk you're unwilling to, in a situation where you hold all the cards.

What if a candidate said $110k? Would you still offer them $160k if you felt they were worth that? Or would you take advantage of this newfound information and offer them less than what you thought the job was worth to you?

Because of this - as a candidate - when someone asks me "what salary are you looking for?" it's an immediate turn-off for me. I pretty much refuse to answer the question or ask what the salary range is for the company.

My favorite thing that a company can do regarding comp is to publicly state what their roles, titles, and salary ranges for those are. Then specify in the job description what title they are hiring for and link to that information.

This absolutely is great for the already-working employees as well as candidates. Knowing what title I am, how much I can expect my compensation to be upon promotion, etc. is beneficial for everyone. You can also publicly state the trade-offs your company has chosen to make regarding compensation and attract candidates who appreciate those things.

Perhaps your base salary is lower than the norm, but you offer other things that make up for it. Examples of things worth more to me than base salary:

* More vacation time * 100% remote * 100% medical coverage * 9+% 401K match * ESPP, RSUs, ... * Very short vesting times * Paid child care (possibly on-site)

The list goes on. I guarantee - unless you are grossly underpaying your employees - that if you just publicly list title : salary, heavily promote your other benefits, and have recruiters link to that, you'll end up being much better off.

latency-guy2
0 replies
16h20m

What if a candidate said $110k? Would you still offer them $160k if you felt they were worth that? Or would you take advantage of this newfound information and offer them less than what you thought the job was worth to you?

I will answer from the things that I control, but yes I would offer what I believe their value is to me. The number given to me by a candidate is just the conversation we have to ensure we are in each other's ballpark. If my budget is in range and your performance in the interview is good to excellent you will be getting good to excellent pay in my organization from my say on the matter.

But there are absolutely things I don't control. E.g. my company participates in regional pay adjustments on salary.

Negotiations provided other competing offers are things HR have effectively full control over, at best I can recommend an uplevel for exceptional talent here to keep in budget for a particular role, but this is determined sooner at the evaluations stage.

The process to uplevel may require input from other managers in my org, my manager, and my skip (maybe even my skip's skip which is pretty much C-suite) to approve depending on experience so its an uphill battle even for me to do this.

Lowest friction is to bring you in at the level I have approved and then get you promoted within the year, but this would likely not be ideal for the candidate as on-hire package items would not be adjusted. OTOH, given a certain level of visibility and impact, you would be eligible for special awards and extra bonus pay which would likely exceed the amortized scheduled of an uplevel on its own for a single year.

Salgat
1 replies
1d3h

Market rate is based on the responsibilities of the job, not on what a single candidate might want. My advice is to not try to negotiate down on what you're going to offer a candidate, just state the responsibilities of the job, the expected compensation, and let the best match fill that. This isn't a menial job where you can swap in a new employee quickly, but is a major investment where an extra 5-10% could save you a large amount of wasted effort when this person moves on to the next company using his time at your company to close that wage gap you created. It always amazed me that companies would fight over a relatively small amount, lowering retention rates, while paying massive amounts towards recruiting and training of new employees.

ponector
0 replies
21h21m

Market rate is based on probability of finding candidate to accept the lowest possible rate. It does not really depends on responsibilities.

A person can double the salary for the same responsibilities simply moving to the other company/location.

And yes, company will easily accept higher attrition than increase salary by 10%. Now even more so, and will hire for lower salary because there are so many desperate unemployed people who have no choice but to accept huge pay cut.

mekoka
0 replies
21h59m

Newsflash my friend, candidates always have a number in mind, even if they're not sharing it. By disclosing only your lower bound rather than the full range of your compensation, I'm pretty sure you're doing yourself a disservice. When people apply for a position at one company, they're probably also interviewing at 10 others. A good engineer that seemed (to you) unsure about comp will eventually pass the first round at places that are more transparent with a number that hits your undisclosed upper range (just the fact that such places exist should hint at something wrong about your beliefs). That'll then solidify a ballpark figure for that candidate. Guess what happens then. At best, your lower bid puts you in a low priority pile. At worst, if you're then willing to revise that number when the candidate later tells you it's too low, you look like a company with a culture of trying to lowball engineers.

Instead of being cagey about comp, do your own homework. Determine how much filling the role is worth (which should also include cost of keeping it vacant). Disclose a range to candidates. Evaluate them for your needs and determine what you're willing to compensate them based on your own estimation of their competence. If there's a mismatch between their expectations and yours, that's where negotiations should begin.

Not overpaying for a role if you don't have to? How much is "overpaying"? You're a business, so shop like one. Don't play games with nickel and dime accounting. Put a number on resources. Acquire them and move it to expenses. Then go back to getting things done.

BurningFrog
2 replies
1d5h

This is not how price negotiations work.

c0mbonat0r
1 replies
1d4h

how should a candidate respond if they arent sure what range this role should pay?

vkou
0 replies
23h35m

Answer honestly. That their pay expectations depend on the details of the job.

marcosdumay
2 replies
1d2h

So, you just push the interviewed to guess a random number without any context, and discard the ones that guess wrong.

That's great! There's also that method of throwing paper curriculums up on a stair, and discarding the ones that land on the wrong steps.

cj
1 replies
1d2h

No. More like:

Recruiter: “what are your compensation requirements?

Candidate: “$250k”

Recruiter: “Ah, that’s too bad. We were thinking this role would pay closer to $150k. Are you still interested in moving forward?”

Candidate: (negotiate…)

icedchai
0 replies
23h30m

I had some recruiter contact me, immediately asks for my salary expectations. I give him a range, between 10% to 20% higher than I'm currently making. They come back with 50K less than I'm making now. "Thanks, but I don't think I am the right fit, this is significantly less than I am making now for what sounds like more responsibilities."

A few hours later, the come back... offering 30K less than I'm making now. "I just talked to the manager and we are willing to come up!" I told him thanks again, but under no circumstances would I take less I was making now. Did he think I was kidding about the initial range? I never heard from him again.

vkou
0 replies
23h36m

If you've gotten to the point of an in-person interview, before bringing it up, you're absolutely wasting everyone's time.

Terretta
3 replies
1d4h

I thought we were supposed to never answer this question.

It is legal to ask what they're looking for or "expect".

It is not legal in many US jurisdictions (California, New York as notable ones) to ask what they made at their prior job.

The first question is necessary since the numbers have to start somewhere.

The second question tends to perpetuate any comp bias the interviewee may have been subject to previously.

That said, as the interviewee, it's fair to turn the order of setting expectations on its head: “I hear your question, but first, what are you expecting to spend to fill this?”

If they object you can try again: “You are a differentiated business with differentiated priorities, meaning your roles provide different returns on investment relative to other companies. What value do you put on this role?”

If they object again, and you are confident in your value creation, try: “One of us has to start with expectations, so I'll start with this — based on my prior roles, I expect to have fully paid for myself within the first X days/weeks/months. My expectation is that will be true here as well.”

Reality is a candidate's dollar "value" to a firm does in fact depend on the utility the firm can make of that skill. This is largely out of the candidate's control. As such, the firm should reveal the range they have in mind first.

mathgeek
2 replies
1d4h

The first question is necessary since the numbers have to start somewhere.

It’s not, though. The only thing asking the candidate for a number specifically generates is leverage for the company performing the interview. The company can just as easily provide a range to start “the numbers” and display good will to boot.

mrmetanoia
1 replies
1d2h

It's like they've started applying that 'value based' pricing bullshit to salaries.

mathgeek
0 replies
6h37m

I’m sure they do that somewhere. Most places it’s a simple “this chart shows industry salaries favor the employer by some percentage when the following question is asked” during training.

makeitdouble
0 replies
15h11m

I thought we were supposed to never answer this question.

As a candidate that's the first question I get, and as an interviewer it also helps a lot.

I understand the risk to abuse the info to low ball a candidate, but setting an expectation level as early as possible helps to better target the interview process and be more efficient when it won't work out.

If someone is asking for a CTO level salary but but we're seeing they'd fit an entry level position, it needs to be discussed at the second round, not at the last round after both sides spent 6h of overall process.

Having the info earlier also helps better target the interview, in particular to justify the person fits in the role. If you're only doing 2~3 interview, they better be well targeted.

cqqxo4zV46cp
0 replies
1d5h

What? Have you ever hired before? This sounds exactly like the unrealistically simple view of someone that’s never been in this position before.

You thought people were never supposed to answer that question? Well, they do. Especially developers, who are more introverted than average, on average, and are easy to catch off guard.

I have a budget, sure. Unless your corporate setup is one that especially takes all power away from hiring managers, it’s almost always more complex than that. Maybe I could move some money around to free more budget up. Maybe someone on my team is a retention risk and I need to weigh up priorities. Maybe a billion billion other things.

Your personal budget, no matter how implicit or explicit it is, almost certainly isn’t this simple so I have no idea why anyone thinks it works this way at work. Any organisation that is that simple and rigid isn’t capable of rolling with the punches, and isn’t somewhere anyone should want to work.

sensanaty
17 replies
1d5h

I always ask what their salary expectations are...

My reply is pretty much always "What's your budget?". If they tell me the budget, I say the top of what they said or sometimes a bit above it (because it's pretty much a guarantee that they're lying about the real budget), if they don't or try weasel out of it, I tell them I'm not comfortable answering without knowing what I should realistically be looking at (and they get negative points from my POV, because why be sneaky with this kind of info?)

It's a shitty question born out of the company trying to screw candidates if they say the wrong number unknowingly. Too high of an expectation? That's a negative mark. Too low? Great, we can fuck them over by underpaying them 20% below what we would've if we'd just posted the salary.

Same with all the other similar ones. Where am I in the process with others? None of your business, I just say I'm not interviewing with anyone else.

cj
8 replies
1d5h

It's a shitty question born out of the company trying to screw candidates

Or a startup hiring for a job title they’ve never hired for before and they literally don’t know what the market rate is?

We just hired our first SRE. We knew what we wanted for in the role but had no idea how to price it. What are we supposed to do other than ask candidates what their salary expectations are? There’s no bible saying what “market rate” is for every given role.

You’re selling your services to an employer. It’s the candidate’s responsibility to know their worth and coherently communicate their worth to prospective employers. Just my opinion.

sensanaty
4 replies
1d5h

Are you telling me startups don't have budgets predetermined before the role is ever even posted?

cj
3 replies
1d4h

Yes, for roles we’ve never hired for.

In which case to find the market salary, we ask candidates (candidates are the market, we want to pay market rates. So, we ask candidates)

tbrownaw
0 replies
1h8m

If I ask my favorite search engine for "technology salary guide", there are several first-page results that at least claim to provide just this.

Are these less reliable that they look like they think they are, or... ?

mlhpdx
0 replies
1d2h

This isn’t just startups.

Some companies have “bands” that define the range of pay for given titles, but many don’t. Even those that do are constantly questioning whether they are the right ones based on a wide variety of factors: Are salaries moving up, or moving down? Are there few candidates, or many? Is the value of this role to the company increasing or decreasing? Does the company have the cash flow? Will it have the cash flow in six months or a year? Etc.

Sitting on either side of the hiring relationship it’s easy to simplify and vilify the other side. But it’s foolish to do so. Over time in your career folks may be on each, in turn.

lubujackson
0 replies
1d3h

I dunno, a two minute LinkedIn search or Glassdoor search will give you all kinds of metrics for all kinds of roles and for companies at different stages, so I don't at all buy this argument.

Especially for developers, you can get a crazy range of quality, experience and location at different multiples of cost. Like if I was buying a car I first determine my needs and money to spend then start searching in that band of prices. What if I just went to a cqr salesman and asked how much are you expecting to make from this sale? Is that a smart starting point for anyone?

marcosdumay
0 replies
1d2h

If you go after one (or a few) person in particular, it's ok to ask that question. In fact, if you go after one person in particular that you know is a great fitting, there is almost no power disparity and lots of things become ok.

But if you decide to just poll undifferentiated candidates to extract valuable information, well, that's really not ok.

jiveturkey
0 replies
1d1h

There’s no bible saying what “market rate” is for every given role

there actually is. there are multiple salary benchmarks available. you should be using one.

eschneider
0 replies
1d

Market salary information is out there and it shouldn't be too hard to figure out where you, as a company, want to place yourself. If you're going into interviews literally not knowing what the market rate is, you're wasting everyone's time.

Yes, it's a candidate's responsibility to know their worth and communicate it to prospective employers. If prospective employers are ignorant of the market, they just look like they're unprofessional.

YZF
3 replies
1d2h

I am a hiring manager. I don't have a budget. What I have are different comp levels that depend on the engineer's level. It's not in my interest to underpay an engineer and I'm not approaching the hiring process as trying to pay a candidate as little as possible. I'm trying to find a good hire and I want them to be happy working for me. I've worked for many tech companies and I've never seen anywhere there was some specific budget number attached to hiring an engineer.

That's not to say there isn't some element of negotiation but it's generally at the margins (definitely not 20%).

The reason I might ask about expectations is just not to waste people's time, not to screw the candidate. I ask about your process with others to know if I should try and get through the process faster on my side. Having a competitive offer might be relevant for the negotiation process but again it's at the margins. You also need to consider your compensation over time, you might be hired at a slightly higher comp but then it won't get adjusted as quickly.

Once we've interviewed a candidate and have a good sense of where we think they are in terms of their level, and decide we want to hire them, then there's no problem sharing the numbers with them, at this point that's an offer. Before we can estimate the candidate's level I don't really think it's useful to tell them that if they're a "level 10" (or whatever) then the salary range is 44,000 to 46,000 dollars (or whatever). If a company posts a range of 100-300k for a software engineering role that doesn't mean that every candidate can negotiate a 320k salary. It means they're ok with hiring someone relatively junior at 100k or paying a significantly stronger candidate 300k.

What I'm trying to say is that with a good employer there is actually alignment and win-win here. If you're dealing with a bad employer who is trying to take advantage of you there are probably better signals for that. The engineering manager who is hiring you into a large tech company is generally motivated to hire a good engineer and make sure they're happy.

eschneider
1 replies
1d

It's the same on the candidate side. I know when I interview, what it'll take to bring me on board depends a lot on the company, the team, and what the position looks like. For something I absolutely want to be a part of, because all of the above are incredible, it's not going to take as much in compensation as a place that's not perfect in one aspect or another, but is otherwise nice at the right price.

But I won't know where the company sits on that spectrum until after the interview.

ryandrake
0 replies
1d

For something I absolutely want to be a part of, because all of the above are incredible, it's not going to take as much in compensation as a place that's not perfect in one aspect or another, but is otherwise nice at the right price.

On the other side of this, there exist a compensation amount, above which I will accept a job offer knowing nothing about the company, am willing to suffer through almost any job or working condition, regardless of whether I believe in the company's mission, want to be a part of the company, where I'll simply say yes sight unseen. No company has even remotely gotten close to this number with their actual offer, but nonetheless I must admit the number exists. If a company just asks "how much do you want?" I don't see any harm in giving them that number. If they are OK with it, jackpot. If not, we negotiate way down from there after I learn more about the company.

sensanaty
0 replies
1d

In my experience (and I've been on both sides plenty of times) - There's always a budget. Call it a band, a range, whatever, the budget exists, and in many jurisdictions the world (and even within different states in the US) over you have to specify what that budget is for any given position. Some places are better than others, like settings a ridiculous range that tells you nothing (100k - 300k like your example) useful, to be fair.

Usually, a job post will be for a specific role. A senior, principal, medior, junior, L9, ABC123, doesn't matter, a rank is usually attached to the job description. At least from what I've seen (and I'm sure this part does vary a lot company to company and role by role, but IME it's pretty rigid with tiny allowances for things like mediors switching to a senior position and stuff like that), the business is pretty adamant on hiring for the advertised role, and not someone who's over/under the role. If you're hiring a senior, how often is it that you'll take a junior instead? Presumably there's a reason the posting says senior. I've seldom ever seen free-range postings, and I'd definitely never apply to one either.

...then there's no problem sharing the numbers with them...

But that's the problem, you're only informing them at the offer stage about what their compensation could be, and they still have no clue whether you're screwing them over. Many people don't realize/aren't comfortable with negotiating for higher pay, I've known a surprising number of people who take the offer as-is (or don't) with no follow up or negotiation.

If you give people the range from the start (preferably before they ever even send the application in the first place), you're saving everyone's time and also setting expectations early on for all parties. People who'd balk at the range would just not apply, and you'd get more candidates who are more likely to accept whatever you end up deciding on.

What I'm trying to say is that with a good employer there is actually alignment and win-win here.

And I think this is a bit of a naive viewpoint. The business has no reason not to fuck you over, and they in fact often do. And it makes perfect sense why they would, after all especially SWE's are expensive to employ, but regardless of if it's understandable or not, it's still a shitty and lopsided dynamic that heavily leans in the favor of the corporation.

rsanek
1 replies
1d4h

The best compensation results I got in my job searching history was when I told all the companies up-front what my timeline was and what week I was going to be making a decision, right at the beginning of the process (month+ in advance). I told them I am doing so with multiple other companies, which allowed me to align timelines and negotiate with many offers-in-hand.

oblio
0 replies
20h38m

When did you last look for a job?

brobdingnagians
1 replies
1d

I know someone who was asked what the lowest they would take was, they answered honestly and then got screwed over by immediately being offered that exact number. The company had a much higher budget. If a company asks you that question, run. That's just a red flag for other problems lurking.

jart
0 replies
5h52m

How is that screwing someone over? Maybe the company said that because the candidate was slightly underqualified for the role, and they would only hire if they felt like they were getting a deal and not taking too much risk. The low ball offer is better than a no. If I was being hired like that, I might view it as a foot in the door to prove how valuable I am. Besides you can always keep interviewing after you're hired to find better offers. Even if you don't take them, it'll give you more bargaining power.

mito88
0 replies
11h32m

5 years: "In five years, I see myself as an important part of this organization, having grown in my role and contributing to the company's success...."

next year: "achieve 20% of the above..."

:)

the_real_cher
0 replies
1d8h

Brilliant

ryandrake
0 replies
1d

It would be nice to have a question that reliably revealed whether the company was always fighting day-to-day fires, or whether they had a nice blend of short, medium, and long term goals that they actually work on. Your second question kind of does this, but a sharp interviewer could easily tell the truth about their stated objectives and plans that they have no capacity to implement because they're always pants-on-fire.

ricktdotorg
0 replies
1d3h

"Tell me about how the team collaborates and coordinates work"

worth it's weight in GOLD

dpb001
0 replies
1d6h

I have always asked the first part of your first question, but it never occurred to me to ask the second part as a follow-up. It reveals a lot about a manager - if there isn’t a thoughtful answer that’s a red flag for me.

janalsncm
18 replies
1d8h

A while back I interviewed with Meta. They have an “onsite” which is really just 5 hours of interviews over zoom. I split it up over several days.

After the first day (which I didn’t feel great about) I asked the recruiter if I had passed the interviews I had given, since there was presumably no point in prioritizing further Meta interviews if I already failed. But they refused to give me any useful information.

Maybe that’s just part of their “process” but let me tell you, that process sucks. If I have other interviews to prepare for, I need to know how much time to allocate to each role. Thats not the only thing that turned me off about meta but it stuck out to me as unnecessarily bureaucratic and inflexible.

monster_group
13 replies
1d7h

This process is quite normal. The reason is two fold - first they want multiple people to interview the candidate before making a decision, one bad interview doesn't necessarily rule out a candidate. The second reason is the candidate experience. Some candidates feel humiliated if their interview is cut short and will harbor bad impression of the company for a long time. The company doesn't want that.

ChrisMarshallNY
9 replies
1d7h

> Some candidates feel humiliated if their interview is cut short

As someone over 50, that interviewed at several places, before giving up, and accepting that I'm retired, I can say that there seem to be a number of companies that actively seek to humiliate prospective employees.

It's entirely possible that it was not the usual experience, but I have found that modern HR philosophy seems to be "Always keep the employee/candidate on their back foot." Always make sure the corporation is Alpha Dog.

A humiliating interview is a great way to filter out candidates that won't roll over for the Alpha.

nj5rq
4 replies
1d6h

modern HR philosophy seems to be "Always keep the employee/candidate on their back foot." Always make sure the corporation is Alpha Dog.

This is absolutely true. A good way of accomplishing a more submissive team is by making it more diverse. If the members of the team can't relate to one another, the less personal connection, and the more submissive each person is to the guys on top.

I am sure some people will think this is not the case and that companies just care about "making things right".

cjcenizal
3 replies
1d3h

Learning how to understand, relate to, and collaborate with people who are different from you is part of growing up.

nj5rq
2 replies
1d3h

Sure, but do you think that's the reason why there is an interest in promoting diverse teams? For helping the people "grow up"? Besides, that's only true if the differences are relatively small, you can't understand and relate to everyone. You can obviously collaborate with them on a professional level.

cjcenizal
1 replies
21h17m

I think mature individuals will be able to overlook significant differences in one another and focus on the outcome: helping the team and the business succeed. If I picked up a signal that a candidate wouldn’t meet this bar, I wouldn’t hire them.

ChrisMarshallNY
0 replies
20h48m

Reminds me of working with Japanese teams.

Some of these guys hated each other, but, when the boss said "Go!" they put their differences aside, and all gave 110%, to meet the goal. They helped each other out, shared information, and never sabotaged anyone else's work.

Japan has the strongest teams that I've ever seen, but there's cultural reasons, and it would probably not scale to many other cultures. There's also tradeoffs, and many people would not be happy with those.

If you want a culture that is really good at ganging up on a problem, then Japan is a good bet.

They wouldn't dream of testing for "cultural fit," because that is assumed.

galdosdi
2 replies
1d6h

It's also a shady technique some companies use to preemptively soften up a candidate they genuinely want for negotiations. They really want you but don't want you to think that so they can get you to accept less in the negotiation. Needless to say, the antidote is to interview as widely as possible even when you're in demand, to get a more objective view of your market value. Also needless to say, it's a huge red flag for company culture. If they don't think you're great, why are they making an offer? Are all your coworkers and managers also going to be people they don't think are great but settled for anyway? Or is it that they're not very profitable and can't afford to pay for quality? Do you want to work for someone who may not be in business much longer?

nj5rq
1 replies
1d6h

They really want you but don't want you to think that so they can get you to accept less in the negotiation.

I wouldn't call this shady, it's just basic business. If you want to buy a house, and you want to lower the price, you can't act all excited.

galdosdi
0 replies
16h8m

That's an arm's length transaction with a counterparty you'll never see again.

An employer-employee relationship lasts for years, perhaps many years, and requires the employee to act as the agent of the employer, repeatedly.

Would you accept this kind of thing if you can help it from a potential future spouse?

Come on.

They're welcome to try this stunt. They're also welcome to lose their best candidates who would have been most loyal after showing a lack of capacity for loyalty on day zero, and instead select for only those candidates who are equally disloyal in return.

jimkoen
0 replies
1d7h

A humiliating interview, is a great way to filter out candidates that won't roll over for the Alpha.

Having the employee commit to more interviews is also a great way to get them into a sunk cost fallacy mindset, which might lead to them accepting a lower offer. There was an article about this on HN a while ago, where it was revealed that Meta would lowball you, unless you had a competing offer on the table (which can be hard to get when you need to do several interview rounds at several companies).

sk11001
0 replies
1d7h

For a round with a single interview, and a single decision maker, cutting things short can be a mercy. As a candidate, if you've bombed, it's a horrible feeling to know that you've failed but still spend 10 minutes at the end on asking the interviewers questions and exchange pleasantries.

But you're right about rounds with multiple interviewers - they obviously collect feedback from everyone before deciding.

janalsncm
0 replies
16h0m

I don’t buy either of those reasons. First, I’m only asking if I’ve failed. They should already know that. Second, my “candidate experience” isn’t being improved by evading a direct question. The problem is, the company doesn’t trust their employees to use their discretion. That’s a bad sign in my book.

bdw5204
0 replies
1d1h

The second reason is the candidate experience. Some candidates feel humiliated if their interview is cut short and will harbor bad impression of the company for a long time. The company doesn't want that.

What leaves a bad impression of a company for me is being gaslit in an interview that they seem interested then getting a passive aggression rejection email later. If you know you aren't going to hire the person you're interviewing, you should let them know and immediately end the interview. That's the polite and decent thing to do.

nar001
1 replies
1d8h

Did you end up passing them?

janalsncm
0 replies
15h58m

I told the interviewer I didn’t have time to prioritize their interview.

aliher1911
1 replies
23h41m

As a person who took part in interview process in FAANG and mid-size late startups (where some hiring process exists) it is not that they don't want to tell you. You usually have multiple interviewers that will score you on various dimensions. They would write their feedback which is then discussed on hiring commitee meeting by hiring manager and interviewers. If one interviewer think you didn't do a good job, this area would be scrutinized to see if other interviewers saw the same red flags or it was a fluke. So to answer your question, recruiting coordinator needs to chase interviewer to write report before the commitee date and then decide if their feedback is bad enough. This is a no started because it makes no sense and coordinator is not qualified to make that call. There were definitely cases where candidate did so bad, that process was cut short, so you were likely not in that bucket.

nickm12
0 replies
13h25m

This is the answer. Yes, every interviewer will have to provide say whether they are inclined or not inclined for the hire, but the interview debrief is where the hiring decision is made, considering the total experience of all the interviewers.

Sometimes there is a candidate who is so obviously far from the bar that we could stop early, but if the phone screen process is working well it's rare. My experience is that the typical interview loop is ambiguous enough that it is rare that later interviews are a waste of time—these may turn out to be the ones where the candidate shines the most.

roenxi
15 replies
1d9h

What’s something you think the company could improve on?

Interviews are serious business and if I'm in one I want to be hired; so I won't ask that. But there is a certain temptation to ask that as a counter question the next time "Please describe your greatest weakness" comes up on the theory that it'd annoy the interviewer if they were expected to put up with the silliness they make candidates go through. The trials and tribulations of being disagreeable.

In all seriousness though, this is a bad question for exactly the same reason as "Please describe your greatest weakness" is a bad question. You're only testing the verbal intelligence of the person your talking to and they are, without a shadow of a doubt, going to give a diplomatic say-nothing answer if they have any sense in them.

rented_mule
6 replies
1d9h

Interviews are serious business and if I'm in one I want to be hired

I absolutely get that sentiment, but I think it's far from unconditionally true for most people who aren't desperate for a job. Do you really want to be hired into a company where you'll be unhappy and likely to fail? I'd much rather wash out at the interview stage than be fired or leave in disgust two months later (the company doesn't want this either - hiring a candidate is typically not profitable until many months on the job). At its most productive, interviewing is about collaborating on the most accurate prediction of whether the candidate will be happy and productive in the situation being hired for. Many companies and candidates are bad at this, but I think it's the ideal we should be striving for on both sides.

I rephrase the above question, just as I do when I'm the interviewer. For example, "Tell me about a change that's been made with the support of senior leadership to improve engineering culture. What were some of the things people were unhappy about that led to that change? What is and isn't working about the change?" If the answers I get are too diplomatic, then my suspicion is that changes aren't being made to improve culture, and therefore it's headed in a bad direction (without active curation in some form, culture goes downhill). If they give me an example that had flawless results, I say "Give me an example that didn't work so well." The more transparency and introspection I see, the more hope I have for where things are headed. Nothing is black and white here, but questions like this can separate companies if you're fortunate enough to get more than one offer.

When asked well, questions like this suggest that the candidate thinks / cares about the health of the org and is willing to politely, but directly, ask tough questions to make a difference. That's leadership. It can directly increase the odds of a better offer. When I'm the interviewer and you're a candidate for a role in management or you're an IC with the word "leader" on your resume, it works against you if you don't ask probing questions like the above, because I'm expecting you to do so on the job.

nj5rq
5 replies
1d6h

"Tell me about a change that's been made with the support of senior leadership to improve engineering culture." [...] If the answers I get are too diplomatic, then my suspicion is that changes aren't being made to improve culture.

There is no "engineering culture" in a company. I don't know why everyone loves that word so much.

sethammons
4 replies
1d3h

There is no "engineering culture" in a company

There is, with out doubt, engineering culture. Culture really means "what customs we use and how we work." Every single company has a set of customs for working. Sales customs, engineering customs, management customs, etc.

Engineering customs, or culture, dictate how the org approaches software development. Code reviews? How deep? Quality checks or not? Is quality encouraged?Level of collaboration between teams and teammates? is there a partnership with Product or does product dictate? How much and what gets written down? How are new solutions brought forward?

Does the company intentionally grow/weed-out these customs? That is engineering culture. You should work somewhere where their customs are things you can adopt. Else, you are not a culture fit.

ponector
1 replies
20h48m

I agree there is no company culture, unless it is really small. Culture of a team, of a department - sure, but not a company, especially if they have offices around the globe.

There could be company values promoted by CEO, but they are marketing bullshit created to look good for the shareholders.

sethammons
0 replies
20h8m

The larger the group, the harder to have a homogenous culture, sure. But there can absolutely still be a company culture somewhere big. Let's grow the company up to the size of a nation state. Not everyone will behave and believe the same things. But there is most assuredly general commonalities, else there would be no difference between the US and Europe or Asia.

Bringing it back, while I have not worked at Amazon, I know they favor smaller teams that are self owned / directed. Yes, one team may suck (different subculture) and not mesh with another. But, in general, you can expect for some commonality. And it will be very different than a start up culture where everyone shares the root account and password to all dbs and env.

In my ~1k person company they have traditionally favored moving fast and validating code in prod. A new culture pushing higher quality to support larger, more demanding customers is being pushed from leadership and demanded by many developers and teams. The culture is changing. What other word could that be other than "culture"? Processes? Those are just codified customs (which is culture)

danielPort9
1 replies
1d3h

But that changes from team to team, and sometimes even from individuals to individuals. It’s rare the company (not faang level) that invests that much in engineering culture.

sethammons
0 replies
1d2h

Of course it verifies from to team. Just like culture varies between any in-group. The culture of a larger group is kinda like the average of smaller inside-group customs.

A company that does not consciously cultivate culture will still have a culture, but it may be like driving a car with no hands on the wheel. At 5 companies so far, someone or group is ay least attempting to steer.

nj5rq
1 replies
1d6h

I was going to type something like this. I don't know how the interviews are in your country, but in mine the interviewer doesn't take this well.

amonith
0 replies
1d5h

Outside of FAANGs, especially in lower cost of living countries (e.g. here in Poland) and high demand jobs (e.g. mid+ software engineers) employers compete for employees most of the time. The reason is simple: nobody's offering above market rates so you have dozens or hundreds of same-y softwarehouse-y companies to choose from. Most of my friends do not apply for jobs because they actually need them. They're looking around for something better while already working for someone.

dejj
1 replies
1d9h

“Please describe your greatest weakness“

I memorized to reply with “I have a weakness for Italian pasta.”

Even though you may be tempted to reply with “You fight like a cow.”

itronitron
0 replies
1d3h

My greatest weakness? That would have to be interviewing.

itronitron
0 replies
1d9h

Also, it shouldn't be a necessary question, as the company should already be making that clear to the candidate and how the the candidate will be an essential aspect of that endeavor.

hinkley
0 replies
18h31m

I used to have a way of asking it where it was part of us figuring out if or how much I can help this team by working here. I’ve lost the knack, and also what makes me quit is feeling like a janitor, so coming in day one already thinking like the cleanup crew is a bad plan. So maybe it’s just as well I don’t talk that way anymore.

ford
0 replies
1d3h

It's a negative signal not to be able to critically assess how you're doing - both for an individual and a company.

The best teams know that being embarrassed about problems, or, at minimum, acknowledging some of the downsides of an intentional decision, is not the best way to solve them.

azangru
0 replies
1d3h

In all seriousness though, this is a bad question for exactly the same reason as "Please describe your greatest weakness" is a bad question. You're only testing the verbal intelligence of the person your talking to and they are, without a shadow of a doubt, going to give a diplomatic say-nothing answer if they have any sense in them

But why? Why would you not expect an answer like "our website is slow, and we are hoping you can help us with that"; or "we are thinking of improving collaboration between front-end and back-end engineers; and we were wondering what your experience has been in this area", etc?

aflukasz
14 replies
1d2h

I will share one data point that just popped to my mind, maybe it will be useful to someone.

About 10 years ago, my colleague and I were interviewing a guy for SWE role. He wanted to learn about presence of pressure, difficult deadlines and overtime. But for that he didn't ask about company culture, values, how our day to day looked like etc. He just clearly stated, that he does not want to work long hours, just 9-5, that it would make him unhappy otherwise and asked can we give him that. While also emphasizing that he understands this may not be possible and he does not feel entitled, it's just that he knows himself well and it's very important to him.

We confirmed that he could get what he wished for (we were in a position to do it), and thanked him for being open about it. He landed the job, and when I've seen him some time later, he looked satisfied, so I believe that the organization delivered on its promise.

I wish all of us such fruitful interviews.

wslh
8 replies
1d1h

Just based on your comment, I would have asked the candidate if he/she would be available outside 9-5 hours in case of an emergency, understanding that the organization will do as much as possible to stay 9-5. I have seen several employees not caring about that detail which can harm the organization.

nrki
3 replies
1d

Symptom of an organization that doesn't plan and instead of budgeting for 1.3x employees for outside hours support, budgets for ~0.9x and extracts the rest with "expectation".

wslh
2 replies
19h32m

What size of organization are you talking about? There is a huge spectrum between startups and established corporations. Also, organizations of all sizes have planning errors.

nrki
1 replies
18h40m

Well, this thread was about setting a boundary of 9-5...would people go to a startup expecting that?

So...definitely for larger orgs, where "emergency availability" would be a big red flag, unless one explicitly opted into a (compensated) on call rota.

I guess one can make an exception for very early career, but again this was about setting a 9-5 boundary

theendisney4
0 replies
16h46m

Im always surprised these things are not calculated into the salary. For a startup, if you can get a very competent dev willing to take a salary cut it seems worth considering. They would bring sanity to the crap one writes when awake for 30 hours+

stavros
1 replies
1d

"Sure, I'm available. How often do emergencies happen, and do you have a retro for every one afterwards?"

oblio
0 replies
20h40m

Nah, not retro. How/when did you implement the actions observed during retros? What was the average delay in terms of number of sprints?

johnmaguire
1 replies
1d1h

Some roles don't require this.

wslh
0 replies
1d

Sure, obviously I was referring to roles where it could happen and/or include help others in your team when an emergency situation arises.

andoando
3 replies
1d2h

This is what Ive been doing with comp as well. I am making x, I wouldn't be happy with less than x, or I like my role and I wouldnt move unless I get y. Recruiters will usually be pretty open back and it saves a lot of time on both sides.

abid786
2 replies
22h57m

Except that if you’re an exceptional candidate you might get uplevelled or they might find money in the budget for you that didn’t previously exist for the role (more so if it’s a small company)

By asking these questions up front you might weed yourself out even though the role might have been a good match.

pdimitar
0 replies
9h24m

Meh, that happens super rarely. Most people are never the perfect match, and the people who land on their supposed perfect role and not care about money are way too young to be that valuable for the company anyway.

Plus we don't work for glory and smiles. A while ago I always made it clear during interviews that I don't enjoy the money negotiations -- of course, that has been used against me so I learned to keep my wits about myself, and nowadays I am like "sure we like each other but I still would not work if I had my needs covered so what are you paying?" (obviously not asked in that form, of course).

oblio
0 replies
20h41m

In my experience those are unlikely events and you save a ton of time by asking directly.

Especially if you make X and they reply with X - 20% (or worse).

brianpan
0 replies
1d1h

Being open worked in your case because, as an interviewer, you answered in an open, honest way. The article is about uncovering the truth when the interviewers are being cagey.

If there isn't reason to suspect that the truth is being glossed over, being direct is a simpler, clearer path. But if things sound too good to be true, you may need to figure out how to get more information, like open-ended questions. I'd follow that up with probing questions to dig deeper towards anything that sets off your spider-senses (but ask in a nice way and continue to present a friendly vibe).

I think this is very similar to being on the interviewing side. People talk about impressive projects they worked on, but that could mean they contributed to a small part of the project or they had real responsibility for the project and its execution. Everyone is putting their best foot forward so you have to ask follow-up questions and dig to uncover the truth.

rubayeet
9 replies
1d3h

The author of the article assumes too much on the interviewers’ ability to deeply reflect on open ended questions, and clearly articulate the response (in a short period of time, because tables are turned when there is only few minutes left on the clock).

As a tangent, when I am interviewing someone, I try to find additional signals about the candidates communication skills / behavioural traits as well as their motivation in seeking the role.

Candidate: “how is this role going to change in X years?” Me (internally): This person is likely growth oriented, and their growth may have stalled at their current role.

Candidate: “How is the on-call load?” Me: This person may be burning out and looking for a place with some stability.

Of course, these are only assumptions and I try to be self-aware not to be biased in my decision by them.

btilly
5 replies
1d3h

The author also assumes too much of the interviewer's honesty. A vague question can easily get a misleading response.

    Tell me about the last 3 people to leave the company.
That will reveal volumes about the company culture. And often they are volumes that the interviewer didn't want to reveal.

soared
1 replies
1d3h

I can’t imagine anyone would actually answer that question, seems inappropriate to even ask

joezydeco
0 replies
1d3h

If I'm interviewing someone and I call their old HR for a reference, they will never say anything other than employment dates to avoid lawsuits. This tracks along the same lines. I can't imagine actually getting a response to this.

hiatus
1 replies
1d2h

Has this worked for you? Employee separation is a personnel issue so I would be surprised if any company would elaborate on that.

btilly
0 replies
11h57m

It definitely has. Just general statements with no way to track back to the people. But the color of how they felt was invaluable.

sib
0 replies
1d2h

I imagine most hiring managers don't have a close enough working relationship with the last 3 people to leave the company to give good, clear, insightful, unbiased information.

Putting aside whether the company's policies would allow them to do so.

JoshTriplett
1 replies
1d2h

Candidate: “How is the on-call load?” Me: This person may be burning out and looking for a place with some stability.

Or this person has encountered companies that massively overwork people and is looking for a place that isn't constantly in emergency crunch mode. Hearing this question, I wouldn't assume a person who's burned out; I'd assume a person who has been burned or knows someone who has.

eschneider
0 replies
1d

Or, I dunno, they want to know what the on-call load is like because that tells one a lot about the level of problems in an org (though not so much about the cause.)

parpfish
0 replies
1d2h

Yeah, for some of these open ended questions that you’ve never thought about its unlikely to reveal anything useful or accurate with an improvised response.

Any answer to “What kind of people succeed here?” Is more likely to reveal how well the interviewer can BS business speak than anything

KingOfCoders
7 replies
1d9h

I think you can see the culture of a company already in how they deal with you. How they answer mails, how long you have to wait for answers, how bureaucratic they are, how they negotiate the contract etc. If nothing is possible to change in the contract, then there is nothing to change inside the company either.

There are not two companies, the recruiting-company and the working-company.

The way they deal with you as a candidate, they deal with you as an employee.

politelemon
2 replies
1d6h

There are not two companies, the recruiting-company and the working-company.

Oftentimes there are two departments sufficiently distant from each other that there are effectively two companies. The HR portion is distant from actual employees and cares very little for culture.

gedy
0 replies
1d5h

That's true, but.. those companies trend towards HR throwing unqualified candidates towards the interviewers, which effects culture by forcing "gotta prove you aren't an idiot or faker!" style interviewing, and hence the people you hire tend to be the the people willing to jump through those silly hoops. The best people I know are not.

dml2135
0 replies
20h55m

okay but… this is still a symptom of the company culture

neilv
2 replies
1d7h

There's a lot of truth to that. However, I think a significant number of pragmatically good situations can happen when some corporate processes are poor, but the team you'll be working on is great, and your superior shields you to a large degree from corporate.

One of the ways this happens is just that you have, say, a mixed engineering department, but your manager happens to be great. Another way is that a company got good engineering talent and culture in its formative years, and carries on, but the business or corporate side evolved distinctly.

Note that in some companies this might mean that you're only one great manager quitting away from being exposed to a ruthless corporate culture grown by stack-ranking Hunger Games and deadly-sharp elbows.

Or it could mean that your team's brilliant product design and solid engineering end up having the market opportunity ball dropped by the dysfunction of others just going through the motions. And maybe you should've suspected that, based on hints during the hiring process.

datavirtue
1 replies
1d5h

Ok...but managers last about as long in a position as a head of lettuce.

neilv
0 replies
1d3h

So store your manager with paper towels, changed frequently, to help them last longer.

gorbachev
0 replies
1d7h

I don't know about that. In a larger company the "candidate experience" is driven by the HR organization. They have nothing to do with day-to-day stuff you do if you're hired. Their job is to sell the company to qualified candidates. They are going to put on a show, be exceedingly accommodating, etc. (that is, if they're good at their jobs).

Also the bigger the company, the more differences there are from team to team. Maybe there's a strong overall company culture, but with large companies they operate mostly at, sort of, guidelines level. Teams, and the people in them, have more of an impact to everyone's every day life.

That being said, I think you're right if the recruiting process is full of problems, that is probably a sign there are problems at the company. Could also be that your recruiter had a bad day.

teeray
6 replies
1d3h

The trouble with “interview the interviewer” is that you typically have, best case, 10 minutes left over to ask your perfunctory “any questions for me?” Just enough time for you to scratch the surface. If you throw hardballs, the interview will run out of time before you can throw many of them.

twoodfin
4 replies
1d3h

As someone who’s been an interviewer approximately 50X more often than I’ve been interviewed, I have come to love the “any questions for me?” part of the interview.

I have progressively reserved more and more time for it, particularly for candidates who are already making a strong impression. And for candidates who are otherwise hard to read or on the boundary, it’s been a great opportunity for clarifying discussion.

Would strongly recommend leaving 30-50% of the interview for candidate-driven topics.

shepherdjerred
2 replies
19h55m

I find value when in asking questions when I’m interviewing for a particular team.

But, some companies do team matching and allocate time for you to ask questions to managers/ICs you won’t be working with.

What questions are worth asking in this context?

noisy_boy
1 replies
14h37m

That just opens up questions for a third-party perspective. If the team you are interviewing for is hated, that is a red flag because usually teams need to collaborate with other teams.

shepherdjerred
0 replies
2h29m

With team matching, you generally don't even know what team you might be working on until after you've passed the technical/behavioral interviews

athenot
0 replies
21h35m

Same. I want candidates to ask me questions. If they don't, I prompt them. If they still don't have any questions, that usually counts against them.

Of course, that's because I cultivate teams where I want people to think for themselves, even if that means dissent or arguing with me. I'm not trying to hire a bunch of "yes people" who just make me feel good. And I'm aware that it takes a lot of courage to ask questions or challenge an interviewer, but that's a similar trait that I'm after in the roles I'm usually filling.

RangerScience
0 replies
1d3h

I've asked for and received more time during the interview process to ask these kinds of questions, so you can just do that. If they say "no", that's a pretty strong signal itself.

melody_calling
5 replies
22h38m

I don’t think I’ve ever had a single interview that left more than about 60 seconds for candidate questions. Maybe you can tease some of this stuff out with the “hiring manager chat” as that tends to be less formal, but in panels?

What level/grade are folks generally talking about here? Or is this a difference between applying for a role vs. being hunted for it?

bigstrat2003
1 replies
21h33m

If you aren't being given time to ask questions during an interview (within reason of course, like 5-10 minutes) you need to go elsewhere. I've never had a job interview (on either side of it) where the candidate didn't have plenty of time to ask questions.

hinkley
0 replies
18h33m

I’ve had places where I pointed out we’d mostly solved the problem and do you want me to keep going or allow time for other questions, they’ve always picked keep going and I’ve always checked out at this point.

I’m not going to work for you based on the negligible amount of information I’ve gotten out of you so far. I’m still workshopping more assertive ways to just say this. We are wasting our time here folks.

ibash
0 replies
21h31m

That’s odd.

Most interviews I’ve had, on both sides of the table, had basically an indefinite amount of time for questions.

hinkley
0 replies
18h36m

I used to get people who were happy if I helped them fill up the half hour or hour. The questions I asked often told them more about me than my answers.

But it’s been a while since that happened. Long enough that I believe your never.

claytonjy
0 replies
18h33m

That's wild, I usually offer candidates closer to 15 minutes (out of an hour interview), and have insisted upon the same when interviewing. Been doing both for a decade, mostly startups.

Abouteo
5 replies
1d6h

Do these "uncover employer's culture" articles have any relevance in today's job market, where qualified candidates send 100s of CVs and don't even get an interview? Then if they somehow get that interview, it lasts 10+ rounds? After being jobless for months and basically going through a full blown proctology exam without lube to get hired, who's finicky to turn that offer down "nah, I don't think we are culturally compatible"?

galdosdi
3 replies
1d6h

Are you focusing on remote or are you able and willing to go on site at least part of the time in a major metro market?

anonymoushn
2 replies
1d5h

"at least part of the time" tends to mean every week so you still have to relocate your family or only visit them infrequently

galdosdi
1 replies
16h5m

Exactly, which is why it gives you a leg up on everyone who isn't willing to live in a major metro.

If you're raising kids, you probably want this anyway. What kind of schools and jobs are they going to be able to pursue without moving far away otherwise? What kind of hospital systems will you and your elder parents be able to access as you grow old otherwise?

I've come to peace with the fact that major metros have significant economic gravity for anyone with a long term time horizon and a focus on family.

anonymoushn
0 replies
3h35m

Well, currently I'm in a major metro with good schools and hospitals, big houses for cheap next to modern transit, where my wife does not get regularly assaulted whenever she goes outside. The pay is several times higher in major metros with bad schools and hospitals, tiny shoebox apartments where the only ISP is the local cable monopoly, where my wife has been regularly assaulted whenever she went outside, and where I will probably get to have a favorite window glass shop again.

stemlord
0 replies
20h38m

Yeah as someone who only gets more or less 1 offer per few months while job searching, I'd rather take the possibly-shitty job while continuing to hunt for a better one if it comes to that than risk draining the rest of my savings with no further (or possibly worse) opportunities

neilv
4 replies
1d8h

It's interesting that most of these are bog-standard questions asked of candidates, simply turned around. If ChatGPT can do that, the similarity won't be lost on anyone.

Larger companies will start prepping interviewers what to answer, for any questions that aren't already covered in training.

It'll be a new ritual by companies that don't know how to interview, in the designated 5 minutes remaining after the interviewer clicks the stopwatch on the Leetcode hazing. The candidate can ask the standard questions to which no one should expect genuine answers, and the interviewer can recite the corporate-approved useless responses. And then the interviewer will literally check the boxes for which standard questions the candidate asked, and whether they asked that STAR format be used. (And someone who ruins an entire field, by defining psychotic interview rituals, and then turning around and selling candidate prep for those rituals, will then incorporate these checkboxes into the latest edition of the prep, guaranteeing that the ritual will be complete.)

I sometimes get meaningful, genuine answers to some questions about the company, I think partly because I tend to be candid, and maybe some people recognize and respect that. However, I think most people won't answer very candidly, if the candidate is reinforcing the mode by only doing what interview prep says. (For example, most people will realize that honestly answering what a company should improve upon, to any random person who walks in off the street, could get the interviewer fired. Why would they risk that.)

noisy_boy
1 replies
14h51m

Packaged and canned corporate speak already happens and will continue to happen. However, assuming you are meeting face to face, you can see their faces when they do it. Generally most people's bs-detector is good enough to catch such pretending and that is the point of the questions - not only what words are coming out of the interviewers mouth but whether those are believable based on the expression/body language etc. People overrate their ability to lie convincingly.

neilv
0 replies
2h29m

True. Though, when they give you a corporatespeak answer to an otherwise meaningful question, the only thing you've learned (if they're not giving additional cues, like you said) is that this particular interviewer gave you a corporatespeak answer, not why they did.

They're not necessarily trying to cover up anything, like telling you some unfavorable truth, but merely trying to act corporate.

So, it's evidence in support of the suspicion that this company is full of commonplace corporate BS, but it probably doesn't even indirectly answer the more specific information you were trying to get at.

majikandy
0 replies
1d6h

I can imagine that if we ever reach a point where the interviewers are prepped with the useless corporate answers to these reversed interview questions, it means we’ve done a great job in pushing to get the right information and gets right to the crux of their issues and possible red flags, one of which might even be a “corporate culture cover up stock answer”. Then surely just a follow up question asking “is that also you personal experience here?” And if you still get a corporate answer then you know for certain it is a red flag. Ultimately it sounds like these sort of questions could work well.

llm_trw
0 replies
1d5h

It'll be a new ritual by companies that don't know how to interview, in the designated 5 minutes remaining after the interviewer clicks the stopwatch on the Leetcode hazing. The candidate can ask the standard questions to which no one should expect genuine answers, and the interviewer can recite the corporate-approved useless responses.

I laugh because I don't want to cry.

la64710
4 replies
1d2h

This whole model of interview is biased towards communication skills and that gets reflected in the culture of every damn company where no matter what you do it is important to be able to “talk”. Talk not in the sense of being objective but talk in the sense of being subjective , being able to influence , be liked etc etc.. it’s all understanble after all we are human too but it’s difficult for kids who grew up in the 80s and were fed with more neutral merit based and objective outlook of life.

rmbyrro
1 replies
1d2h

Aren't you pointing out how the average human is?

I mean, we are a heavily communicative species. The most of all species by a very, very large margin...

la64710
0 replies
23h37m

True and that is why the Tower of Babel was built and remove objectivity.

dasil003
1 replies
1d2h

I grew up in the 80s too, and I hope by this age one would not be tethered to naive interpretations of whatever values were pitched to them as a child.

I’m not the greatest natural communicator, and I didn’t get into software to work with people, but I have come to the conclusion that there just aren’t very many roles for senior software engineers that don’t require solid communication efforts to be successful. It’s not about subjective vs objective, it’s just that most paid software positions are about solving a problem for other humans, and it’s hard to get it right if you aren’t well practiced in both listening and discussing their needs interactively. The user will never understand the reasoning for the technical choices, so the empathy must flow the other way.

la64710
0 replies
23h38m

Listening I understand , but enjoying the privilege of talking freely (which only a certain type of people have) and thereby becoming the thought leaders of an organization and determining what everyone should like and what they should not - I think is what does a disservice to the organization in the long run but the interviews and internal mechanisms are biased towards such people.

Cupertino95014
4 replies
1d3h

The thing to always remember is: the way they treat you at the interview is the best they will EVER treat you.

Do they ask if you need water, coffee, etc.? Do they give you time to use the bathroom? Do they keep you waiting excessively? Do they listen to your answers and look you in the eye, or do they keep staring at the resume as if they've never seen it before?

What they say is certainly interesting, but what they do is more so.

romanows
1 replies
1d2h

Probably more telling for smaller companies. In bigger companies, there may be separate roles and organizations managing the interview process, and you might not interview with the exact people you work with.

Cupertino95014
0 replies
1d

True, although in my experience a long time ago, IBM was so extraordinarily considerate that I almost went to work there! They even gave me cash at the end of the interview, so I didn't have to file an expense report (unlike every other place).

joezydeco
1 replies
1d3h

I always ask to use the bathroom.

I was in one office where the CEO had pictures all over his office of his collection of race cars, but the bathroom hadn't seen a coat of paint in 20 years.

Massive red flag.

Cupertino95014
0 replies
1d

I went to one little company where they had a unisex bathroom. This was not for gender equality -- it was because they had so few women that they didn't think it worthwhile to build a bathroom for them.

switch007
3 replies
1d9h

Much better to ask current or past employees if possible. An interview is PR and the hiring managers know it. You won't get honest answers

And you just risk not getting the job

pigeonhole123
2 replies
1d7h

How can I find these people? Especially people who were fired or pushed out for example?

switch007
0 replies
1d6h

I didn't say it was easy hah. Meetups, Twitter, LinkedIn etc.

sensanaty
0 replies
1d6h

I usually just find former employees on LinkedIn. I feel like most people are pretty honest once they're no longer part of the company (unless they're manager/execs or slightly adjacent, those types are in PR mode 25/8), and people tend to want to help others out if it's a truly shitty company they didn't enjoy.

Of course, take what they say, praise or otherwise, with a grain of salt. It's more about looking at the general theme between a few people, rather than what an individual or two says.

dzonga
3 replies
1d4h

being opinionated is now a dangerous game.

but those questions in the article don't make sense. your interviewers, go through interview training and are coached into giving politically correct answers.

just like you BS some answers in your interview, companies do the same as well.

no interviewer, is going to be like - this place sucks - we're slow moving, we're led by leaders without vision, there's a lot of internal politics.

everyone will tell you - this is the best place they have worked etc.

the reasonable answer to work life balance is to ask how long they have worked there - usually places with better work life balance for people that have families - not solos like us - tend to have good work life balance - and people have long tenures. YMMV.

best place I worked - before the usual tech grilling - I had an hour lunch with the team and the rest of the company. they got to know me, made me comfortable and I got to know them as well.

toast0
0 replies
1d3h

just like you BS some answers in your interview, companies do the same as well.

Yeah, and just like they sniff out your BS, you need to sniff out theirs. Ask for details and see if they check out.

You usually don't have a lot of time for detailed questioning with each interviewer though. You should get a lot of time with the manager or lead, but use your other time well; don't ask everyone the same questions unless you expect different answers.

It also helps to figure out what you actually want from an employer. A lot of these articles are written from a perspective that there are specific things everyone should want and must verify, but terrible environments for some can be great for others. Of course, late and missing paychecks is terrible for all.

astrobe_
0 replies
1d3h

being opinionated is now a dangerous game.

Where were you during the Inquisition, I wonder.

BeetleB
0 replies
1d3h

your interviewers, go through interview training and are coached into giving politically correct answers.

Very few companies have a standardized interview process where interviewers get training. Less than 10% easily.

My Fortune 500 company doesn't have it. Perhaps the managers get such training but the majority of interview sessions are not with managers.

_the_inflator
3 replies
1d8h

Senior Manager here who build up a career from being dev at agencies to overseeing 500 devs at a global large company.

All is speculation. Culture is a term that has no meaning. There are niches for everything everywhere.

We are all on a spectrum. If AI and ML reminded us of anything, than it is that there is always a spectrum.

The only question is, whether you are willing to take risks or not. If you have a boss, you live by his mercy. Bosses change, circumstances do as well, team members do, workspace and subjects to work on. All not in your control.

I think of my pay check in terms of punitive damage to a certain extent. High enough to stay? High enough to find out?

If you have a somewhat plan b worrying about culture becomes meaningless.

I saw it many times, there are no predictors. Slow processes? Fantastic people bound to decisions. Friendly encouraging folks wanting you? Crazy sociopath who forget about you, once lured in. Fantastic tech stack? Yeah, at the beginning.

So what do you do? Professional attitude that honeymoon means nothing. Money and options do.

There might be one exception that I used and that was bluntness. I told people that I look for people who care about professionalism. I told them, about what we are really doing, how our tech stack came to be and is managed over time. What our career model really is. Nothing shiny 24/7/365, but great devs with challenging technical objectives looking for similar people or others who want to have a more relaxed supportive function. Nothing wrong here.

I quite talked them out of the job so to say. Addressing mistakes and how you cope with them might be the only helpful predictor I am looking for.

oneepic
2 replies
1d7h

Also, candos are trying to flag potential "warzones" and avoid them. Meaning, they don't want the job to become a constant battle with anxiety, users, other stakeholders' pressure, things like that. They just want a job, or worstcase scenario they want to coast and do less time.

That said, the right tradeoffs can make it totally worth it. I think I joined one by accident, personally, but I feel that I have the best people, career growth and tech here (always wanted to do some networking work), so it still feels right to me.

jimkoen
1 replies
1d7h

They just want a job, or worstcase scenario they want to coast and do less time.

I'm not seeing how this is a bad thing? If companies are looking for signals to hire me, I can look for signals that indicate mismanagement, incompetence or toxicity in the workplace (or all of the previous).

oneepic
0 replies
1d6h

Which part is bad, the worstcase part? I'm sleepy. I guess I meant a dishonest person giving positive status updates but basically lying about the progress or stealing credit. Coasting isn't the bad part i guess, it's the explicit dishonesty to other people around them.

BurningFrog
3 replies
1d5h

I don't know what to ask, but I know who to ask.

A common SWE interview setup is that you talk to the manager and then a few of the engineers.

The manager will keep up a professional company facade.

But the individual engineers will usually answer pretty much any question honestly. Both because we're bad at lying, and because you don't want to end up working with someone when they discover that you lied to them.

knallfrosch
1 replies
1d4h

Also because there's no incentive to lie.

xpe
0 replies
1d2h

People will indeed sometimes lie or spin for various reasons. There doesn’t necessarily have to be an external incentive. Sometimes internal factors are enough; e.g. to reduce cognitive dissonance. They will sometimes lie to themselves and they will sometimes lie to other people. The world is complicated.

malwrar
0 replies
1d4h

Definitely this. Candidates have asked me some pretty hard questions and I rarely ever feel much internal resistance in giving an honest answer, for this exact reason as well as personal guilt that someone might make a major life decision in part because of a deceptive answer. A manager might not hire you if you ask a question they dislike, but unless your question to my humble engineer self is something like “how few hours a week do you manage to get away with working?” or “I hate computers, do you frequently work with computers?”, I don’t even know how I’d give you a thumbs-down without sounding disingenuous in the post-interview feedback meeting.

So much interviewing advice is bullshit, but it’s 100% true that asking good questions at the end is the ideal point to get the most accurate picture of what your job experience is going to be like. Just like my interview questions are in-part trying to gauge what it’s going to be like working with you.

Log_out_
1 replies
1d7h

Why did my predecessor leave?

Helps to avoid DevHops companies were the tech debt rolled out to customers is sending the core team fleeing..

nullorempty
0 replies
1d2h

Reminds me of one big company I worked for, where I took a job despite all the indicators screaming "don't" because the pay was relatively good. Left it 18 months later with on-call PTSD.

JoeCianflone
1 replies
1d2h

Something I’ve asked in the past: “what is the one thing that the person hired into this role, if they did that, at the end of the year you’d say that was a great hire” seems to always catch people off guard and I’ve gotten answers that were almost wildly out of scope for the job responsibilities. When that happens it’s interesting to see their response when you point that out. Also huge red flag means the person interviewing you had no idea what they’re interviewing you for or everyone has a different idea what this role does. I ask this to everyone at every round.

hinkley
0 replies
18h29m

What are you hoping the person you hire will be able to help you with? What are your expectations for this role?

theusus
0 replies
1d6h

I have seen company say utter bullshit in similar questions. I got smart replies from HR when asked tough and later fired me in an event with opposite experience compared to what they promised.

stevezsa8
0 replies
17h43m

I once interviewed at the London office of a US based company. The best part was when they took me to lunch... I asked the young American what he was going to do on the long holiday weekend. He said they have to work. Lol. No thanks!

steveBK123
0 replies
1d5h

One thing I've asked, which is kind of funny because as an interviewer you cannot ask me for HR reasons.. was "so what do you like to do outside of work".

In particular I only did this at 2nd/3rd round for jobs I was pretty sure I didn't want because the managers just seemed like hardos.

Seeing a hiring managers corporate robot brain go into "this does not compute" mode was confirmation I did not want the job.

If you are unable to even contemplate relating to me at a human level at that step of the process, and/or genuinely have zero interests outside of work - no thanks. I am not an automaton which consumers Jiras and outputs PRs.

spot5010
0 replies
1d6h

As an interviewer, I tend to be very candid when the interviewee asks questions about the company, culture, role and fit. After all, if the candidate joins, I would be their colleague and wouldn’t want to start the relationship on a dishonest note.

When interviewing, I would expect the interviewers to be the same. If they are not, then that already tells me a great deal about the culture.

spacecadet
0 replies
1d1h

Specific questions aside. I have for many years approached interviews in the mindset that, I am interviewing them, and this has worked out much better for me. Of course this is amplified by doing research and preparing specific questions to produce a more truthful image of the business and culture. However, people are generally trained to weed out "non-culture fits" and close on "unicorns", so nothing said in an interview should be taken as reality.

roeles
0 replies
10h35m

As a candidate, I was asked once "tell me something about yourself that I can't read on your cv". I could not help but tell what was on my mind outside work.

I have used this question for candidates as well. I received responses about hobbies, families, quirky preferences... It's a great way to get to know someone personally. I imagine it works well for getting to know future team members and bosses too.

pts_
0 replies
1d5h

These are all trash questions. Find a way to ask them about deadlines. Deadlines should be estimates defined by the engineer. Estimates mean estimates.

patrickmay
0 replies
23h18m

When I'm in the hot seat I use a variant of a set of questions I ask SWEs when I'm the interviewer. Those are "What's your favorite programming language? What do you like best about it? What would you change about it if you could?"

As an interviewee they become "What do you like best about working here?" and "What would you change if you could?"

mmooss
0 replies
22h8m

The best advice IME is the old advice, 'when someone shows you who they are, believe them.' It applies to the organization.

If the receptionist and the person you meet are cold and disdainful, that's the culture. If they are compassionate and creative, that's the culture - that's the CEO, even.

Unless it's a special event, people are too busy, stressed, and weary to constantly conceal who they are, and they are usually not self-aware enough and too jaded to see themselves with any perspective. Even the professional con artists (which includes many business leaders these days) are obvious cons; even if you don't know the truth they hide, they are transparent about it - like someone playing Three Card Monte, you know they're a con and it's a trick, even if you can't figure out where the card is. Brazenness almost a point of pride for them, so believe them!

And you are doing it too; don't forget that. :)

mgaunard
0 replies
1d7h

The main things I'm interested in are:

- what is the scope/mandate of the team; i.e. would I be powerless in fixing things because ownership lies elsewhere.

- how close is the team to the business; i.e. do they have a good understanding of what matters and can they have impact on revenue.

massung
0 replies
1d1h

Assuming a multi-person interview process, where who you are interviewing with slowly goes up the ladder, one question I always ask (of each person) is:

- If you could snap your fingers and change/improve one thing at the company, what would it be.

The responses could be technical, cultural, about management, communication, etc. But this question has never let me down. If I a random distribution of different things, I know that - like any company - there's always going to be different things that people don't like (and that I won't like either). And I'm just asking myself if any of these are not a good fit for my personality.

However, if I notice multiple people all identifying the same one or two items, then the higher I get in the food-chain of interviews, I might pivot the question, calling it out:

- I've heard multiple times now $PROBLEM, what would it take to address it?

The best answers come from mid-level management. They'll usually be very frank about any cultural issues that prevent the problem be solved, but are aware of it. Regardless, the higher up I get, this one question usually has me knowing whether or not this is a place (culturally) that I want to be at.

intelVISA
0 replies
17h37m

Ratio of 'dev adjacent' to devs on the team is a good one.

frugal10
0 replies
1d4h

In many organizations, I've observed disparities between different business units (BUs), where some maintain high hiring standards and strong cultural values, while others may struggle with talent gaps or cultural misalignment, often due to factors like poor acquisitions or leadership gaps. What specific questions should I ask about the company, the role, or the team to ensure I avoid landing in a BU with such disparities?

erikerikson
0 replies
1d4h

This seems to encourage conflation of the interviewer and their personality with the company culture. I have been an open, collaborative person in a cagey, secretive company. Thinking that place was similar would be an error.

emrah
0 replies
1d4h

You are talking to humans. If there is dysfunction at the company, they are not going to let you discover it directly by asking questions.

I'm thinking back to all the places I worked at, unless the interviewers were being completely honest, there was no way to figure out the actual culture by asking questions.

electrondood
0 replies
23h29m

I just ask each person I interview with:

* "how's your work life balance?"

* "how often do you work outside hours? Is there an always-on culture?"

* "when is crunch time and what does that look like?"

* "what's your least favorite thing about working here?"

And then I watch their microexpressions.

If multiple interviewers have the same reaction, there's your answer.

datavirtue
0 replies
1d5h

All of this is ridiculous and difficult to pin down. If they are not ware of the problems themselves all they can do is report symptoms, then you have to work backwards and start guessing. If they don't want you to know about some details they are going to lie to the candidate, either on purpose or subconsciously. Often, the first few moments of silence contain the real answer.

The whole dynamic of employment is deeply flawed. Employees should have contracts. Without them people can say and do whatever they want after the honeymoon. Everything else in business requires a contract, except for employment so they can do whatever they please with the employee. An abusive relationship from the start.

codazoda
0 replies
23h42m

abhas9, I’d love to chat.

I’m interested in your experience with the Neat CSS framework (this is the first time I’ve come across it organically). I’m also curious about the testing you’re doing.

My email address is in my profile if you see this.

azangru
0 replies
1d3h

“How is your experience working at the company? Can you tell me about the company culture?” ... If the interviewer gives a vague answer, dig deeper: “Can you give me an example of how the company culture manifests in day-to-day work?” This can help you move past generalities and get a better sense of what life is really like at the company.

If you are interested in what life is really like at a company, why use vague abstract concepts such as "culture"? Especially if the company has multiple engineering teams, and you are interviewing for one of them, it is quite possible that the "culture" differs from one team to the other. Why not ask something like "how does the team communicate on a daily basis?", "do you use practices x, y, or z?", "what do you expect from a new hire on this position?", "what are your most important values in the area of tech for which you are hiring?"

at_a_remove
0 replies
1d4h

I despair thinking about this. I long for a world where I could be upfront about my strengths and weaknesses, then receive honest answers in turn, such that a great fit could at least be on the horizon. Instead, everything is saturated with game theory, HR weirdness, and the pettiest of politics.

I'd like to be somewhere that I work I can best do is what is actually needed, and that need is recognized.

Ahmed_rza
0 replies
1d2h

Love this