Hacker News Reader

Comment by neofrommatrix | Hacker News Reader

I recently interviewed at very hot container startup. I had 1 phone screen, 6 on-sites, and 2 follow up phone calls. I did well in the phone screen to be invited onsite. Apparently, I did great on the 6 interviews onsite and then they wanted to have a follow up phone call with a manager (30 mins). That was positive too. But, the last phone call was set up with the SVP who determined that I was not a good "culture fit" after 30 mins on the phone. This in spite of me having had wonderful technical conversations and interviews (including coding) - which I apparently rocked- with 6 engineers and 2 managers, and having very highly relevant experience working in the cloud (orchestration and networking). The SVP just swooped in and decided I was not a good fit.

I simply don't get interviews these days. Sigh! On to a better company.

View on HN

> I recently interviewed at very hot container startup. I had 1 phone screen, 6 on-sites, and 2 follow up phone calls.

Seems to me like you dodged a bullet.

> But, the last phone call was set up with the SVP who determined that I was not a good "culture fit" after 30 mins on the phone.

Why is an SVP spending 30 minutes on the phone with candidates that have already done eight interviews with the troops on the ground? You definitely dodged a bullet.

> 6 on-sites

I don't understand the point of multiple (or very long) interviews. If they can't decide after the first 30 minutes if the candidate is hirarable, they probably won't.

It's an illusion to think that interview environments relate directly to workplace performance. Interviews are mostly useful for the subjective parts than for grilling candidates in hopes of avoiding a bad hire. Going through all the hoops and knowing all the things doesn't make for a good employee. Not unless you're being hired as a robot worked in some factory floor.

Also, unlike what seems to be the general idea elsewhere on this thread, soft skills are very important, I argue even more important than hard skills. If you have any ability to learn (which may be considered a soft skill) you can pick up almost any technology and implement almost any algorithm. Not so if you lack the ability to relate to you coworkers, work effectively as a team, or clearly communicate your ideas.

You can learn tools, but you either have the right attitude or you don't.

I agree. You cannot fake good nature and attitude during all day interviews. At least, I cannot. Soft skills and communication are really important in any team environment.

But, how would one go about determining whether someone is a quick learner? That beats me.

You don't determine it directly. But quick learning comes with other traits, like curiosity. You can determine those during a conversation if you're a good interviewer (which is the catch, interviewing is also a skill).

Sometimes you'll fail. But I've yet to see convincing proof that the alternative reduces failures (but it does reduce the willingness of people to admit failure).

Maybe you legitimately weren't a good fit? I'm not being facetious, but "the SVP was an idiot and made a terrible call despite all the evidence" is possible but not the most likely scenario.

Maybe someone with exactly your skillset and experience was hired, hated it, and quit after 6 months. Maybe one of the other people you interviewed with mentioned an offhand comment you made and it soured the SVP's expectation. Maybe they just got served divorce papers and were shitting on everyone that day?

It's so random that I don't even try to second-guess or deconstruct the non-technical side anymore. It happens or it doesn't.

Very possible. From the recruiter's rejection email, it seemed that the decision was really close. And you're right. Cannot really speculate about this.

starts with D, btw.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com