> definitely don't say your tech lead is an idiot
I’m curious to know why you recommend this. The poster should perhaps not use those same words, but isn’t it worthwhile giving honest feedback?
I’m curious to know why you recommend this. The poster should perhaps not use those same words, but isn’t it worthwhile giving honest feedback?
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.
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.
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."
#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.
You can still be honest without getting personal: say that you felt your work wasn't recognized or growth opportunities were lacking, etc. Those could be red flags too, but they at least give the interviewer some signal on your personality/expectations without conflating overtly negative interpersonal issues which really can only make you look bad.