> Don't insult the interviewer
If you are the type of person who insults others at work, please...please insult me in the interview. It's so much better to find out this type of thing earlier rather than later.
If you are the type of person who insults others at work, please...please insult me in the interview. It's so much better to find out this type of thing earlier rather than later.
I give this as advice because I don't really care if the candidate likes me or not. What I care about if he can control himself and behave befitting the occasion.
If you can't do that on an interview there is no way you can do that later during normal work.
And I have clear, strict no asshole policy. We come to work to solve problems which does not require insulting each other. There is going to be problems and there is not going to be any insults because we understand we all want the same thing even if we have different capabilities, approaches and value systems.
I understand this doesn't mean people don't want to insult each other. There are always going to be tensions and what not. But I want workplace to be safe space for everybody. There is already enough stress, no need for people to be additionally miserable by asshole coworkers who can't control themselves.
I interview and hire a lot and I really do care and want the candidate to like me. Is this this rare, naive, both?
Now, just because I don't like somebody or somebody doesn't like me does not we can't behave civil and discuss and try to resolve our differences. Or even agree to disagree but still keep cooperating on this and other matters.
It also doesn't mean I have to go out of my way to get people to dislike me. I am trying to be reasonable, fun, I smile and compliment and I try to find and expect good in everybody until I am proven wrong. It is just I try keep this separate from ability to think straight and cooperate with people.
Now I don't worry about questioning a line of code or result since it is an interesting insight into how the candidate thinks and communicates.
Show the candidate a piece of code and let them review it, something they'll actually be doing frequently. You'll get an insight into their understanding of the code and how they communicate improvements.
For a follow-up/bonus round ask them to suggest changes and fix it. A candidate that does this unprompted and well is a positive signal in and of itself.
No stressful whiteboarding and trivia questions. Just a relaxed conversation with their peers that they'd regularly have during work.
A lot of interviewing advice tells candidates to only speak when they are spoken to and to only answer the questions they are given. It is also a cultural thing, in some cultures candidates will absolutely not volunteer any information on the interview. I can't really fault a candidate for doing that.
On the other hand I can create opportunities for discussion, especially when my interests or expertise and the interests or expertise of the candidate intersect.
If you don't know why, you must watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE
Also, I never said this is my advice. In general I like to volunteer information during interview when I am the candidate. I think it lets me control the situation a little bit better and move to ground that I have much more expertise in.
I am just saying that I can't fault candidate for not doing this.
Sorry I probably didn't explain myself - I mentioned it goes both ways: the discussion should be encouraged by the interviewer (vs "here's a problem I'll check my phone while you whiteboard it"), but the candidate should also seek to do the same - especially if they are senior and good, I expect them to interview me/us. However it's true that it's on the interview to establish an atmosphere where the candidate can be comfortable doing that. I start all my interviews emphasizing this as well as I can, and lead the candidate into questions with stuff like "is there something you would like to know about how we do X here?"
I'm also not questioning something I know is right.
Mostly, I just let them code. When they're done, I always say ... are you satisfied? some go back and check, others stand pat, but this lets them take a fresh look.
I then have the opportunity to question something I think in my heart is wrong. I the example, he was right and I was wrong.
For things that look ok, I sometimes start a discussion about embellishments they could add or other techniques.
I really try not to be that guy. I just want to get to know them.
This cuts both ways. Interviewers are not by default right. So likewise an interviewer that doesn't know what he's talking and doubles down on it, I'd rather find that out at the interviewer because it points to a dysfunctional organization.
Most organisations, it seems, would be served well by people who constructively handle bullshit/misunderstanding from senior people; for some it's absolutely vital.
The difference is whether you aim at correcting the information or whether you are aiming at the interviewer. I want the first one, not the second one.
The interviewer had on a tshirt that was only fit for rags and did not know anything about the role.
Fast forward to today any interaction with that agency is always like pulling teeth and the lack of knowledge is staggering