> I led a project to refactor the core code base and make performance improvements which accelerated development speed by 30% and decreased app size by 50%, leading to 10% in app installs.
>
> (please note all numbers are illustrative)
In my experience, it's more like "please note all numbers are bullshit". I agree with you, in that whenever I see numbers like this I would say 5 out of 10 people are totally making them up, 4 out of 10 are taking credit for a large team effort, and maybe 1 in 10 has a real right to say he was responsible for that metric change. So the problem is that even if you're that 1 out of 10 person, the interviewer may be coming at this with the attitude of "90% of people are bullshitting".I feel like the article is "half right". Yes, I want to know how you drove business outcomes, but I really really care what you actually did. I've been in too many interviews where people could talk a good game but then when I tried to drill down into specific actions the interviewee took, I felt like that consultant from Office Space: "What would you say ya did there??"
I want to know lots of specifics about how you approached the work because that is the only way I can read between the lines and gain a lot of information about your experience and general style.
I have no interested in the stats because they don't help me understand how your capabilities+style will actually translate to the role.
How exactly do you know that? Unless you're a manager or something, how do you know that the company got say, 30% more users and 20% more repeat views after they changed the sign up process?
For an awful lot of companies, the tech department flat out doesn't know what the stats are like for their site/app, or care enough to track the direct impact of their work.
Is that a good thing? Absolutely not, but it seems like a depressingly common one nonetheless.
The only responses I got out of that were "generally we can tell if you're embellishing, and the hiring manager can probably tell, so don't lie!" without much further deliberation.
I was hoping that the anonymity would grant them the ability to say the quiet part out loud, but I guess I shouldn't have expected much.
Realistic: Redeveloping the login page for the site increased return users by 30%
Unrealistic: Reveloping the login page for the site increased return users by 300%
Discussing impact also communicates that you're impact-oriented, which often indicates maturity and seniority to many readers.
"who cares how well the feature did"
This indicates lack of seniority to many CV readers, especially startups. "Who cares"? Literally every single person who was at your startup before it failed because people were too focused on tech and not enough on the product, the business, or the users. How many startups have such a thing written on their tombstone?
To quote the article's giant pull quote at the bottom:
"The more you describe the “How”, the more Junior I think you are."