Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by giantg2 2048 days ago
I would be careful with your test about asking a question that you pretend not to know.

If I were in an interview, presumably with my technical superior, I would not be as interested in the job. I want to work with knowledgeable people so that we can work together efficiently and teach each other stuff. If the person above me doesnt know the answer to simple things, then I might question the strength of the team. The interviewee typically doesn't have a lot of power, but they are evaluating you too.

I once had a tech lead who did not make good leadership decisions and lacked a broad technical knowledge. He did not like me (maybe he felt threatened). I did not like working for him. Part of that was because his decisions seemed like we were not taking the smart approach or factoring in longterm concerns. If I get this sort of vibe in an interview, then I'm probably not taking the job.

Something related happened in an interview once. The tech lead had her laptop with her and she was glued to it the whole time. It's understandable if there was a prod issue, but there wasn't. At one point the manager asked her if she had any questions for me, so she asked one. As soon as she asked it, she went back to her laptop. When I was finished giving my answer, she didn't even acknowledge it. There were a few awkward seconds of silence and the manager picked it back up. They offered me the job and I declined. The manager was dumbfounded and and made lots of excuses. Then he called my current manager (same company) trying to get him to grill me on why I turned down the job, even though I gave him my reasons already. I absolutely hated my current position at the time, yet I knew this one would have been worse based on that interview. If I couldn't get the tech lead's time in an interview, there's no way she would have the time to develop me as a resource.

1 comments

>I would be careful with your test about asking a question that you pretend not to know.

>If I were in an interview, presumably with my technical superior, I would not be as interested in the job. I want to work with knowledgeable people so that we can work together efficiently and teach each other stuff. If the person above me doesnt know the answer to simple things, then I might question the strength of the team. The interviewee typically doesn't have a lot of power, but they are evaluating you too.

Yes, and I'm interested to see that evaluation and how they act on it. The whole thing is what you do with vulnerability: does the person correct me and consider it a problem to fix? How does the person do it? Does the person rejoyce that I got something wrong/don't know something? (which is the case of people who don't know much who do not believe when they "get to correct someone" and make it a big deal). Will the person let it slide and be secretly disappointed and talk about it (which is characteristic of bad, toxic, organizations)?

Delivery is key. This reveals a lot by incurring a small "reputation"/"perception" debt repaid quickly afterwards.

That and you other points are all valid concerns.

"...debt repaid quickly afterwards"

If you're telling them it was a test and providing feedback, then I could see that eliminating my concern. I think I wrongly assumed (based on my past experiences) that it was done in secrecy without telling them it was a test or how they did.

Even though my organization requires interview feedback for internal candidates, it's rarely helpful or insightful.

Who is really the vulnerable person in an interview: the interviewer or the interviewee?