[nairteashop]

I think the answer to this is "it depends".

When interviewing engineers at my last gig, we tried to find people who will "get things done", which in turn depends a lot on your specific job role. For a good majority of the software dev positions we had, getting things done didn't require in-depth knowledge of arcane data structures or algorithms. We just needed the candidates to be smart, and ideally have some experience in what they were being hired for.

So for say an iOS dev position, we would pick the candidate who had released two apps on his own but maybe didn't know much about say red-black trees, vs. the candidate who knew all his CS theory but hadn't yet written a single line of iOS code. We also valued good communication skills, and what Linus refers to as "good taste".

However, we did have a few roles (machine vision, big data, etc) where algorithmic knowledge was essential to getting things done. And for these roles, we always favored candidates who had excellent math & algorithmic chops.

So it depends. I think the problem really is that most interviewers run all candidates through an identical "favorite list of questions", regardless of what the role is. This is quite unfortunate.

[onedev]

If I hear the words "get things done" one more time, I might just flip out....

Sorry this isn't directed at you, but I view that phrase on the same level as "changing the world".

[nairteashop]

No offense taken, but I'm curious as to why you hate that phrase.

"Getting work done" is essentially what we're hiring people for right? As long as you can get done what you were hired to do, it shouldn't matter whether you suck at algorithms, are not a "ninja", don't fit "culturally", and whatever other weird things companies look for in candidates. It's as prosaic as it gets, and IMO it's the absolute correct metric to use.

It's as different as it gets from "changing the world", which honestly very few companies are actually doing, and is hence a source of irritation for me as well.

[gibbitz]

It's important to make a distinction between two different types of "get things done" here. There is one type where the candidate figures out what needs to be done to complete a feature in an application and does it. Then there's the type where the candidate figures out what is the least work (ie fastest way) and does that without trying to understand the potential outcomes. Given that the slapdash candidate is great at patching bugs I would maybe consider him/her, but frankly I prefer people who measure twice and cut once. I know that sounds like a separate concern --it is-- but some business cultures confuse work ethic and results along the lines of "gets things done".