[jlokier]

The poster thinks the tech lead is in idiot partly based on the fact the tech lead doesn't close as many tickets as juniors.

Any good interviewer will figure this out if it's mentioned.

Then they will know the poster doesn't know as much as they think they do about the job of a tech lead, and that they jump to damning conclusions from dubious judgement. This correlates with "this person may be challenging to work with", which matters a lot.

They might still get the job, but it's not an advantage.

Instead, why not start a constructive discussion with the interviewer about how they found the way work was done disappointing at the last job and would like to know how things are performed in the new one, or if going for a lead job, how they envisage going about the lead role.

[bjourne]

You are yourself jumping to damning conclusions about the OP, a person you don't know anything about except for what is written in his or her question. It is entirely possible that the OP is right and that the tech lead is an idiot. That is a valid reason for wanting to switch jobs.

[croo]

Regardless what the truth is its a good idea not to criticise, condemn or complain about anyone on an interview.

[jlokier]

While I'm prepared to believe you, looking at my comment it doesn't seem that way to me. Out of interest, which damning conclusion do you think I've reached about the OP?

I've avoided saying anything about whether the OP is right about whether their tech lead is an idiot.

The only conclusion about the OP I see is "The poster thinks the tech lead is in idiot partly based on the fact the tech lead doesn't close as many tickets as juniors."

I think that's a simple implication from the OP writing "he is not very productive — our junior engineers are lapping him on tickets closed".

All the rest of my comment is about how an interviewer might likely think if that were said in the manner discussed; it's not about the OP.

[bjourne]

> While I'm prepared to believe you, looking at my comment it doesn't seem that way to me. Out of interest, which damning conclusion do you think I've reached about the OP?

1. That the OP doesn't know as much as they think they do about the job of a tech lead. 2. That the OP is jumping to damning conclusions from dubious judgement. 3. That #1 and #2 correlates with being "challenging to work with."

[jlokier]

Thanks.

#1-3 are about how the interviewer will likely think if the discussed remark is said in an interview; they are not my conclusions about the OP.

It would have been more accurate if I'd stated that was a risk being taken by the OP in the interview rather than a certainty. Though I expect that would have made the point less clear to most readers.

#3 correlates with #2 (not #1), and this relation is not specific to the OP.

#2 may not be true of the OP, but an interviewer who thinks it based on things said in the interview, is likely to think #3 follows.

This is a risk the OP is advised not to take if they are trying to make a favourable impression.

[p1esk]

Agreed. When I'm interviewing someone, any negative remarks about past employment (or anything really) would be a huge red flag, regardless of the actual merit of the remark. In my opinion, this is just not something smart people do (being negative during the interview), and my main objective during an interview is to determine how smart one is (not to mention being pleasant to work with). They can bitch about their past employers over beer in a bar - after they've been hired.

[AznHisoka]

..and any interviewer could jump to the same exact conclusions. They are human after all. Why risk that?

[aprdm]

Just like OP is jumping to the conclusion that the lead is an idiot when he probably has very zero idea of what his lead actually does or what a lead developer does.