Almost everyone on this site seems to have gone through similar interview experiences one time or the other. Our profession can get rid of this malady only with collective effort, as the author suggests:
Lastly, this story fills me with an overwhelming desire
to never continue the cycle of abuse. I strive every
interview to try to respectfully work with the candidate,
and never humiliate them. I want every person I interview
to leave feeling loved as a human and respected, even if
they are completely incapable to perform the duties of the
job.
I agree. It looks like most interviews are aimed at finding "defects" in people - why they would not be a fit, than looking for reasons what the candidate can bring to the company/team if they were to join.
I make a point to do this in all of our company's interviews. Even if they don't end up working for us, if they speak highly about us to other developers, it can have a positive network effect. And even then, outside of corporate interests, everyone wants to be loved and appreciated - isn't that enough of a reason to be kind to each other even in situations like an interview?
When I interview, part of my job is assessing the likely effectiveness of the person I'm interviewing.
Part of my job is making a positive impression on the person, so they want to work with me (more than they already did, perhaps), so the amazing candidate will choose us over their other opportunities, and the rest will at least say good things about us.
He should have walked out the interview the very moment they made the "Can't you afford a real machine?" comment. Even if you pass the interview, do you really want to work for/with these assholes?
Not enough people realize that interviews are a two-way interaction. Steve is lucky that he got the valuable answers without ever asking the questions. "Company A" failed that interview dismally and should be embarrassed. I would have shown myself out of the door given pretty much any of their remarks.
I know several people who worked for a company with an abusive culture, and they were definitely miserable. What's interesting is that these types of interviewers attract people who are themselves abusive, and eventually (without outside stimulus) the company becomes a homogeneous mix of assholes. It sounds bizarre, and I wouldn't have believed it if I hadn't been told the story by trusted friends.
This presentation is bullshit. You have no evidence,
nothing valuable to show, just spurious subjective
opinions. You've put up a straw man and now are trying
to knock it down assuming we are idiots. I've seen
enough.
Whoever said this is a dev I'd refuse to ever put into an interview again. Hell, I'd be reluctant to put this dev into any meetings requiring communication skills.
I wrote it down the quotes four years ago, just because I knew I'd want to write about it at some point. I didn't want to "get back at them", just turn it into something good.
There's a large segment of the software industry that believes their way is right, and everything else is wrong. The phone you use, the computer you use, etc.
Recently I had someone tell me that if you're still writing apps that serve HTML, you're "doing it wrong" because everything should be an AJAX backend with JavaScript. Is that the way apps are going? Certainly. But is that the way to do everything? No.
I did a conference talk on Elixir this last week, and later ran into someone who told me that there's no need for that as he can do everything better and faster with Node, and "why should I waste my time learning THAT? I saw a benchmark showing that Node was faster, so I'll use that."
Here's what I think the problem is. Every morning you log on to Twitter and HN and you see ten new things out there. You don't know when your thing of choice will be out of style with the clique you run with. And it's tiring. So developers are so insecure about their own knowledge that they seem to seek out confirmation bias, surrounding themselves with an echo chamber that believes what they believe. That's more comfortable. And anyone who believes differently has no business being there.
> Recently I had someone tell me that if you're still writing apps that serve HTML, you're "doing it wrong" because everything should be an AJAX backend with JavaScript. Is that the way apps are going? Certainly. But is that the way to do everything? No.
Excuse me, but what are the advantages of not serving HTML directly? I honestly find that way more convenient (possibility to give links for example).
Main one is that you deliver less content if you serve JSON instead of HTTP.
Pros: You don't have to rebuild a full HTML page for every new query, be it server-side of client-side, you don't have to serve assets for every request and client doesn't have to recall/reinterpret them, less content means it's served faster,...
Cons: More strain is put on the client (virtual DOM, keeping the front-end framework in memory). Though it's negligible on most clients.
I've worked at enough places to see twerps like that, it doesn't seem very far fetched to me. It's just classic abuse of power. Granted, they're outliers, but they are out there. Really, though, in the grand scheme of abuses of power, this story is relatively pretty tame.
I hear this sort of thing so often. Not the OP; I mean your comment. "I can't believe anyone in this industry could be so obnoxious/callous/racist/misogynist/solipsist." It's true that most people are unreliable witnesses, but don't forget there is also our tendency to discredit unflattering stories of people like ourselves. Let's face it: this kind of bullshit behavior is hardly unheard of. The only surprising part of the story is the quantity of bullshit -- the quality of each individual nugget is all too familiar.
I agree to a small degree. It is certainly one mans biased perspective. However, ive been through enough interviews and am even guilty myself when interviewing of turning on a condescending attitude when feeling threatened. Im not proud of it, but its the truth.
The other side of the story probably has a perspective/narrative that makes them look peachy. As with most stories, the truth lies somewhere in the middle.
Both sides made mistakes. I just hope this candidate turned interviewer realizes the solution is not as easy as, dont do what they did...or even " treat people with respect" those words mean nothing without taking ownership of your own screwups and working on being secure in who you are... IME nothing will make you a better human being than being secure in who you are intrinsically, owning your imperfections and striving to improve yourself...judging others, as this article does, while possibly true, id an indication of someone shirking their own culpability in this experience and blaming external variables. Its not about what actually happened, its about what you do with the experience, and being a nice interviewer is too subjective to know if you are actually nice or just think you are acting nice.
Looks like the story some time ago. Especially with emotionally charged stories like this, people always tend to misremember or warp the details and not realize they're doing so. I'm sure the general gist is right, but I always get a little suspect when someone describes eye-rolls or how someone sounded sarcastic. Those are exactly the sorts of things that we remember differently as time goes on.
Yeah, 25 minutes late set the tone for that interview. I don't really care what the reason is, I'm going to be pissed if someone is 25 minutes late for anything.
Do you have any special reason to doubt his story so vehemently? Should we dismiss any workplace abuse story as embellishment? Bosses and coworkers are always friendly and professional?
I know people that have suffered boss/coworkers bullying and I find this story plausible. And I know this industry and some people can be very inmature and unprofessional.
As the root poster said, it's comic book villainy. I believe that he had a bad experience and that the interviewers were rude but the story as told doesn't pass the smell test.
Right, but as someone conducting an interview, checking your watch every minute waiting for someone to arrive, you don't know what their reasons are. And as the time passes, you start wondering what the hell is up with this person, wondering about all the other things you could be doing, etc. etc. and it leaves you in a bad mood for when they do arrive. No amount of explanation will change the bad mood, I'm not going to suddenly get bright eyed and cheery because it turned out to be a scheduling error.
A candidate is taking time from their busy schedule and are considering making a contribution to your company/team/project. You should appreciate that more.
In the real world, shit happens. There are an inordinate amount of things that can go wrong and delay someone. In this case it's all the worse, since the problem was the interviewers own organization. The interviewer should be apologizing on behalf of his organization instead of being an asshole.
No, I think there is justification. In the real world, people aren't stoic and patient, especially executives who have their day planned out to the minute. The applicant did everything right here, and I'm not defending the interviewers, just trying to think about how that situation comes about. If the applicant was on time, would the interview have gone the same way? I don't think so.
I've definitely been there. Their receptionist told the CEO the wrong time. I showed up on time, and all the C-levels I was supposed to meet were gone. They gave me over to some other manager for a courtesy interview, but I already knew it was over. I immediately confirmed the time after with proof, and they admitted their error, but at that point, it didn't matter. I imagine they were too embarrassed to give an apology, and, after seeing how it was handled, I was no longer interested.
> No amount of explanation will change the bad mood, I'm not going to suddenly get bright eyed and cheery because it turned out to be a scheduling error.
It won't & can't change your past frustration - sure. But do you have to take it forward to the new few hours as you are judging another person trying to find his means of livelihood?
Me personally, no. But I recognize that it takes extraordinary actions to turn people's moods around. Saying "the recruiter messed up" doesn't solve my mood, I'm just mad at a different person now.
I used to do get riled up over things I don't control. Getting into a bad mood over this is your responsibility. Think of it as a situation to work on your emotional intelligence.
Okay, but then what you're saying is, at that point you are in a state of mind such that you are not going to be able to accurately evaluate the candidate. In that case, you should recuse yourself from conducting the interview that day, and reschedule, get someone else to do it instead or both.
My take is the candidate has his head so far up his arse and lives in this bubble world of his making.
The people I have known who are truly that good are humble about it. Those who are not humble, IME are never as good as they think.
I would expect that, as the interviewers did not instantly bow down at this guys superior knowledge. This write write up is his personal interpretation of what the interviewers thought - why else would they not give him the job?
Interviewers perspective.
"This cocky guy comes in, tells us everything we do is wrong, that he can improve everything we do, literally laughs and derides our working. In the end I walk out."
What do you think of the practice of ending an interview earlier than scheduled when you're quite sure that the candidate is not a good fit for the position?
The rationale I've heard is that it saves both you and the candidate time.
But in practice, during the times when I've seen it done, the candidate ends up feeling really hurt.
Terrible practice. Unless the candidate themselves is rude or doing something totally off base. That has to be really rare. Your pre-screen process should prevent most of the completely unqualified candidates from getting in the door. From there, once invited to your company, it's important to treat people with respect. Besides that being just generally good life advice for Any Situation, it makes good business sense too. People talk, and if I hear a company has a bunch of asshole interviewers that cut people off, I'm not gonna apply there. I'm gonna assume the entire company is assholes.
I have ended a few interviews early when I was absolutely certain that a candidate wasn't a fit, but only when they were objectively not right for a position. What I try to do in those cases is end the main interview set gracefully, then take the candidate in for a one-on-one and talk to them about where their skills don't fit, and what kind of position they would have more success searching for.
In general, my belief is that any time a candidate reaches out, they're putting faith in me to treat them with the respect they deserve -- everyone is a good fit somewhere, and I have no time for people who want to use interviews as a chance to prove their intellectual superiority or to band the team against a possibly inferior "outsider." Same thing with using whiteboard-heavy interviews as a weapon -- I have yet to hit upon the secret sauce for finessing a candidate who might be a great fit but is floundering with the stress of a whiteboard problem, but I do try very hard to not make them feel like they're failing, while seeing if they can approach the problem in a rigorous manner.
Ugh, that sounds exactly like something an engineer would come up with. Saves time, right? It's more efficient so it's better. Except it doesn't even pretend to give the candidate a chance to save face, it's just naked rejection. But why should that matter, it's just emotions, it's not rational.
When I tell them it's X hours, it's X hours, even if we have to start doing katas together pair programming. I therefore try to make certain I want to spend that much time with them before I bring them into an interview.
You should always end an interview earlier if you are 100% sure that the candidate is not a good fit. If it is under the 100% you should continue you never know what the candidate can reveal later on.
These guys sound like movie villains. They may be programmers by trade but they belong to no profession.
I have a very difficult time imagining that, as the top comment says, "almost everyone on this site seems to have gone through similar interview experiences." During the dozen or so interviews I've personally done, I've seen interviewers arrive late and unprepared or unqualified to conduct the interview occasionally but I've never been treated discourteously.
Maybe the job market in 2003 was such that some people felt like they could get away with more in the name of "evaluation?" No clue, but seriously - planned evaluation or not I'd have certainly pardoned myself from the interview prior to the group lunch. Sticking it out to be avoid burning bridges only makes sense if you are being treated with the modicum of respect a human being deserves. Some bridges deserve to burn.
Edit: not about a story that occurred in 2003, so feel free to disregard my idle speculation about the state of the job market.
Things cannot get worse for him unless the company is committed to ruining its reputation. Then again someone companies have been known to release personal information when threatened.
There are times when it is necessary to recognize that we are interacting with the environment, not in our capacity as logical problem solvers, but in our capacity as social apes.
"This presentation is bullshit. You have no evidence, nothing valuable to show, just spurious subjective opinions. You've put up a straw man and now are trying to knock it down assuming we are idiots. I've seen enough."
At this point, the correct response is "Yeah, I've seen enough too. This interview is bullshit. I'm surprised you clowns are still in business. Good day." And pick up your stuff and walk out.
Obviously that won't get you the job, but nor will anything else; in reality, as very often happens, they made their decision no later than ten seconds after you walked into the room. (Anyway, would you even want to work for people like that?) Continuing to stammer meaningless-in-context words about tech stuff will just result in damage to your self-esteem, which can have significant negative consequences in your life for years down the line.
These guys were pure jerks. What person thinks its 2003 when you have a Linux. I love a Mac and use it on a regular basis, but Linux is the real machine. That's where you get your hands dirty and learn the inner workings.
Yes, you treat the developer with utmost respect even when you know from the start of the interview that they are unfit for the job. People change over time and you never know how your company might meet him in the future. Make him an offer or not, you have to let the candidate leave with a good feeling.
I have interviewed at quite a few places including startups. But, never anything like this.
This sounds highly improbable, especially the "Oh, wow, Linux, what is this, 2003? I'd hoped I'd never have to see....." comment, I honestly can't believe there are any developers would make such a comment.
The OP should name the company if this interview was this terrible.
I don't want to say. Its been almost four years since then. A friend started working there for a different team, and he intimated the team I'd interviewed for was strongly anti-TDD, and very pro-Python. Even he laughed at me for not using a Mac. Recently they expanded too much and laid off 3/4 their development staff including my friend. In all, it sounds like it wasn't a great place. But I don't want to publicly call out a whole company of hundreds of developers because I got stuck with a few bad apples.
I do wish I know who my interviewers were, I want to meet them now and ask them what was up and what they thought of the whole thing. I do remember a few in the room seeming pretty embarrassed about it all, but I think the main three antagonists were their bosses or something.
If you tell HN how they looked and the company name, we can go on a witch-hunt :p.
But in all seriousness, sorry you had to go through something that terrible. Like someone mentioned already in this thread, you should have left the place when you heard the linux comment. Come to think of it, I'm happy for you for not getting stuck in an obviously poisonous environment.
I'd be willing to play devil's advocate and say it was mainly the time that peeved them (peeved them enough to fire the recruiter for giving everyone the wrong time), but they really should be professional enough to not turn into 5 year olds when they get annoyed.
What's the appropriate response as the interviewee in that sort of situation? They've completely turned you off to the idea of working for the company, should you just excuse yourself and end the interview?
it is obviously a dubious story.
Wouldn't the first thing you would say as soon as you enter the room is that you got an invitation to 9h30 and not 9h?
Then what did op reply to their questions such as 'can't you afford a real machine'? he just mubbled? I would reply very harshly to such comments and show them who is the weakling.
While they were total assholes, you were not in a desperate enough situation that would justify you to say amen to whatever bullshit they say.
It's dubious because he didn't respond as you would? I never thought I'd be reminded of victim blaming here, yet here I am. Unless you personally know the OP, you have no idea what the OP's personality is like. Sure, I personally would tear them a new one (civilly) if they treated me like that, but I have non-confrontational friends that would be terrified to escalate the situation like that.
> Then what did op reply to their questions such as 'can't you afford a real machine'? he just mubbled? I would reply very harshly to such comments and show them who is the weakling.
That's a rather macho way of handling things. Personally, and i speak only for myself here, i would be miserable in a job that required me to behave that way, but perhaps it's fine for others. Different strokes for different folks and all that.
Just bear in mind that not everyone functions that way, some of us prefer respectful and constructive environments. But i, too, concede that that's just my preference, and there are probably different personality types that will gravitate to different office cultures.
For the record, i still think it's boorish to make such comments. I know that i would also probably just mumble and steam in such a situation (after all, i'm in people-pleasing mode, i want the job, but at the same time, i'm being goaded).
The OP thought that their attitude might be some kind of test of how he handled himself under pressure.
I play the meta-game, wondering if perhaps this is a test to see how I’ll react when questioned and embarrassed. Even if this wasn’t a test, I was determined to be the most professional in the room and finish with my head held high.
The behavior of the interview team was truly appalling here, and this was a good post. It's important to be aware of just how bad things can get in technical interviews.
However, much as I'm always game for a good horror story, I'm more interested in the damage that the ordinary, polite, courteous technical interview/exam may be inflicting on people and our industry.
As I've posted in the past, I believe that tech interviews are essentially entrance exams that software developers are forced to take over and over. Actuaries, for instance, take exams on topics that correlate closely with mathematics classes, like numerical analysis or vector calc and linear algebra. These exams are recognized for what they are - rigorous entrance exams to show competency in core subjects. We don't call these exams "interviews" and leave it to an some dude who sits in cubicle D-12 to decide how he feels like testing an experienced Actuary's understanding of integration by parts today.
The reason I prefer to focus on the polite, respectful, professional interviews is that it helps us see the fundamental problems with our approach, rather than the misbehavior that can occur in any interview situation. I do think that the intense technical interviews in our field have taken the place of the bar, the actuarial exams, the medical boards. However, most professional entrance exams adhere to a code of conduct - students have an associated study path, they get a respected credential (reassuring their peers and hiring managers that they really do possess this knowledge and ability), they are aware of who their examiners will be and are assured that they possess the proper credentials and expertise to conduit the exams properly, fairly, and most of all, consistently.
I really would like to see developers, as a profession, determine how our competence will be established relative to our peers.
Now, one more thing - I said that I prefer to focus on the polite interviews than the horror stories, but I absolutely do acknowledge that a process like tech interviews may be unusually prone to these horror stories. In short, horror stories like this may not be entirely orthogonal to the core issues, they may very much be a common side effect.
Instead of highly respected practitioners and acknowledge experts sitting on a board, we go grab a few developers and hope they know what they're doing. When I defended my MS project, Berkeley didn't go out and grab a few people who seem to know the industry well enough (uh, I guess, oh, he's busy, well, this other dude seems pretty good, have him sit in) and have them decide whether I would receive a degree. I'm not saying there is no variance among experts, some may pass you, others may not, without question. But I could be certain that the people on my committee were qualified to evaluate my work, that I had rights as a student sitting for an exam, and I would receive a lasting and meaningful credential with feedback (not just a "we've decided not to proceed with your application at this time, but we'll keep your resume…).
With such a capricious and chaotic process, yeah, the sort of thing described here is more likely to happen.
Exactly. What kind of schmuck wants to look like some kind of business professional? What are you trying to do, give the impression that you put some thought into your appearance and have respect for the interviewer's time?
A suit? Get with the programme; we have a strict uniform in this game and you'd better not have the self-confidence or the sense of style to step outside the uniform. We hire people who are just like us, and don't you forget it. Monoculture and groupthink? Damn right. That's what we want.
I've worn a suit to most of my interviews, including that for my current position.
Edited to add: I am surprised at "patent leather shoes" - for daytime business attire that's neither common nor traditional (which isn't necessarily a problem, but is certainly bolder). It's also possible he didn't actually mean "patent leather".