|
Worst interviews are ambushes. Things are going fine, you're discussing tech stuff, guy decides you need to "code" right now in an alien coding environment. First time, guy asks me how I'd do some problem, I talk him through it, I mention there's an easy O(n^2) way but with a bit of thinking there's probably an nlogn way. He doesn't want to let me think for half a minute, just rushes me into the inefficient solution. So I do that, and at the end it's "oh I think there's a better way". Second time I've been through a bunch of rounds, 3rd party recruiter calls me to ask to go into the office to meet the boss, to discuss terms and numbers. I get there, he wants to code some BS algorithm on a piece of paper. I do the whole thing, he finds a bug. Won't tell me what it is. As far as I can tell, he isn't a compiler. So I search around a bit, find the bug, whatever, I don't get why he can't just let it go when we've talked through the algo. So we go on, second problem, I nail it again. Again there's some bug. I tell him listen, if this wasn't on a damn piece of paper in crappy handwriting, it wouldn't be a problem. Why are you trying to hire a head of trading technology using a piece of paper and a pen? Didn't get the job, funnily enough. |
That's a great description that hiring managers / HR / people who design and conduct interviews should contemplate. Are we ambushing candidates or are we seeking to understand their strengths and weaknesses?