Hacker News Reader

Experience-based interviews are a fantastic way to select for candidates who have "failed up" through a long series of jobs. The underlying dynamic is that it usually takes more than a year to sever a technical employee; you can faceplant in a role and still wind up with a resume improvement.

Experience as in numbers of years or project participation is flawed. But experience as in contributions and knowledge of some specific domains is good IMO.

I hear this a lot, but man, I just really don't think so. First of all, 1-year stints come off very poorly in this kind of discussion. (I would say that a bias against people with a bunch of short stints would be a failure mode of "experience-based interviews" rather than the failure mode you're describing.) But also, I have had these discussions with (in my judgement) both "failed up" candidates and "tons of valuable experience" candidates, and I just don't have this experience that it's difficult to differentiate.

I'm fully aware that according to the internet, there is an epidemic of bullshit artists who can go deep on the architecture and tradeoffs and their contribution to the things they worked on, without having actually contributed to those things, but I dunno, the narrative just doesn't jibe with my anecdotal experience.

My only uncertainty here is that I do think I have been very fortunate in the people I have worked with in my career, so I might just be getting lucky. But I have truly never worked with someone who is hired largely on the basis of a strong resume, but genuinely can't grok fizzbuzz, or whatever the contemporary equivalent of that is.

I also recognize that you ran a real company doing real work on this, so I'm generally inclined to defer to your wisdom...

You can tell that I'm very torn on this, because the conventional wisdom is so strongly against my perspective on it, and I generally put a good deal of weight on conventional wisdom. But man, I dunno, it all really feels like an inertia thing that I increasingly question the original foundations of. Sometimes the emperor actually doesn't have any clothes on...

First, they're not "1 year stints". It takes about a year to manage someone out of a role once you've decided you need to do that. Nobody makes that decision on day 1 of a report's tenure.

Second, how well the "stint" comes across in the interview is a question of how skilled the candidate is at talking. You can make anything sound like anything in an interview. The interviewer has no reliable way of checking.

If someone has a multi-year stint where the last year was spent managing them out, I am not convinced that this demonstrates that they are an incompetent bullshit artist. Not every employee is valuable to every company forever.

I've written a bunch of words in this thread about how I'm skeptical of your second paragraph. I recognize that you and many people I know and have discussed this with are adamant about this being true, and yet I remain unconvinced. I have interviewed many people, some of whom attempted to talk up their previous experience unconvincingly, and some of whom were impressive but nevertheless unsuccessful after being hired, for various reasons. I still haven't come across this person who can go into depth about their previous projects, while being a total incompetent bullshitter. I'm certain such people exist. I'm unconvinced that they are as pervasive as all the discourse on this would have me believe.

Sure, that's a risk, but that's part of the purpose of an interview - both to discover what they claim to have done, and to assess how accurate that is. This is the purpose of asking about decision making processes, alternatives, architectural summaries and deep dives, etc - if they really did everything they claimed then all relevant details should come rapidly and fluently.

The problems with the alternative - interviewing based on problem solving and coding challenges are:

1) For the most part it doesn't work. Companies like Google, that have reflected on and assessed their own interviewing success, have come to the conclusion that there is little correlation between how well people interviewed in this style do on the interview vs how well they perform on the job. This is a pretty low bar to beat!

2) If you are interviewing for 10-20-30 year senior with a track record of success and adding value, how can you possibly hope to assess that via problem based challenges, especially if conducted by a less senior developer who doesn't themself have the skill set and track record you are hiring for? How do you know if the person just talks a good game and can throw around high level concepts, or can actually deliver?

I do think there is some value to problem solving as a small part of the interview process, but certainly not if this comes at the expense of ignoring the candidate's actual experience and accomplishments which is the best indication of what they are capable of.

I have zero confidence in the ability of interviewers to reliably and repeatable parse out subtle characterological details in candidates. Like I said, the interviews you're talking about are essentially random functions.

Google has notoriously one of the worst hiring processes in the entire tech industry.

> Like I said, the interviews you're talking about are essentially random functions.

Only if you are REALLY bad at interviewing !

And what's the alternative - you want to hire someone to head up your infrastructure modernization based on acing LeetCode challenges and drawing a few diagrams on the whiteboard ?

Google invests huge amounts of money and time into their process and I am repeating a conclusion they arrived at about their own process.

What companies hire differently than them? Everyone seems to do the exact same thing.

Many people's understanding of "Google's hiring processes" is from a few articles over a decade ago. They had done numerous studies, switched things up, and now have a pretty solid approach to interviewing. This is one of the articles that was going around back then, and most of the conclusions are how Google still interviews: https://www.workforce.com/news/laszlo-bock-just-google-him

I work with many ex-Googlers that did a lot of interviewing and they process has been pretty consistent for many years now, and seen largely successful.

> Of course the difficulty is how to you assess what the candidate has honestly achieved in prior jobs - what was there personal contribution,

> What was their role, what were their contributions

I got a hard reality check on this when my company was getting close to hiring someone I worked with at a previous company. Their resume claimed a lot of achievements that other teams had handled. Their work was always a problem and had to be quarantined from production systems because they were very careless and would even submit broken code without testing it.

They would spend a lot of time in Slack discussing other team’s work so they got good at talking about it. I think they also used a trick where they claim to have competing offers from other companies and not a lot of time for interviews, pressuring the interviewers to do discussion and resume reviews instead of getting into technical questions.

This wasn’t the only time, just the first time. After that I started doing more checking for claims on resumes, including calling old friends who worked with a person. It’s crazy how often someone will claim some responsibility or experience on their resume assuming that nobody will ever check it.

I definitely think checking references should be more core to the process. I don't really understand why it isn't. Legal concerns? Or just because it takes a lot of time?

I would personally feel way better about interviewing for jobs if it was like peer reviews during a performance review cycle.

Just do one project. Ask them for an interesting or challenging problem they had, go over it at a high level from a business and technical perspective, and then dig in as deep as you can on specific parts. Ask about business impact, how was that measured, what were the tradeoffs, what made it especially difficult, what were the alternatives, what they'd do differently, etc. If they can go deeper than you can, then that is a good sign.

Yeah this is my "natural" interviewing style. Like, I have a resume, I'm talking to a person, my natural curiosity about the person and their work leads me to exactly the kind of conversation you're describing. Then my hire / no-hire intuition is basically "am I impressed with them after that conversation?".

But then I've also read a huge amount about interviewing "correctly" over the years, probably starting with the fizzbuzz article, and eventually participating in "Big Tech" interview panel training, etc. And all of this directly contradicts this natural intuition that I have, and which your comment is espousing.

So I'm honestly left with pretty strong cognitive dissonance about it at this point. Are we wrong? Or is everyone else wrong? How can this consensus on the "right way" have become so ingrained for so long while being so wrong?

(I also haven't been involved in a lot of hiring or at a big tech company since 2022, so I also have no idea how things have evolved to adapt to the advent of AI tools. Surely nobody is doing the same kinds of whiteboard problems as they used to do! Right?!)

This is still my preferred method.

The one counterargument that I accept as valid is that this method struggles with equity and bias. It's impossible to have a conversational interview style and ensure everyone is getting equal treatment. And it's impossible to rule out subconscious biases as a factor while you're having that conversation. While giving people cookie cutter panels doesn't completely remove those issues, it helps a lot.

Yes. Agreed.

Hiring based on gut feeling about how impressive the candidate feels can be misleading when you only do a little hiring. It can work for small samples sizes if you have a strong front end filter or you are primarily getting candidates through trusted referrals.

Then one day you encounter a candidate who is great at impressing people. They leave you feeling excited with the possibility of working with them. You feel delighted after each encounter. Then you hire them and they’re not good. At all. They don’t know basic things that you assumed they would based on how they spoke in conversation. They used all the right words and maybe even recited the precisely correct things to say for a system design question about past work, but when they have to do the same work they’re lost.

It’s a weird feeling to discover your intuition about someone was completely wrong, because we all think we’re better than average at separating the wheat from the chaff. I think it happens to everyone who does hiring at scale.

Or there's potentially this: that the skills we think are universal and transferable ... are not.

That our industry is so bespoke and different and non-standard around tech stack organization and work culture between shops that in fact someone could have been performing top tier at their previous jobs and just completely not function in your workplace.

And because we have a recency and confirmation bias around your own positions, we treat their failure to thrive in our environment as evidence of incompetence.

When it's just really a bad fit -- one you can't really shake out in a verbal conversation or a whiteboard coding exercise.

Or there could even be something wrong with the way our own workplace is organized. One that we're used to working around, but the new hire is not.

There's so much broken everywhere I've worked. When I see a misfit I generally assume it's a combination of factors, not a person lying or being incompetent (though yes, I've seen that, too)

We see this occasionally in consulting: a strong performer will sometimes land in a gig that turns out to just not be a good fit for them. We know it happens, we make a point of watching out for it, and we can correct for it when it occurs - but we can't reliably predict who it'll happen to, and in what circumstances.

Mostly, they simply move off to another gig where they return to their previous strong performance. Occasionally they take a hit to their self-confidence and take a while to get back up to speed (we try hard to mitigate this, but it does happen). But sometimes they'll take a break, work out what was causing the poor fit, and come back much stronger than before.

It's not unreasonable to expect a similar pattern outside of consulting - it's just that, for perm staff, the psychological barrier to cutting your losses and moving on are much higher.

Yeah. This is why I really wish the job market were optimized to lower switching costs, rather than seemingly the exact opposite.

I'm certain that this is true. It certainly sounds true.

But honestly, does anyone here have experience with doing this kind of interviewing at scale, for experienced software engineering roles? I've been in the industry for coming up on a couple decades, and I have been involved in doing lots of interviews at times, and in that whole period of time, at every company where I've worked, we did the standard multi-round whiteboard / coderpad interviews. Do other folks here actually have recent experience "hiring at scale" in this industry, with a process focused on candidates' experience? Who is doing that?

And also, the question is not "are there ever false positives?" or even "is this biased toward a certain kind of false positive?". Nobody thinks any way of hiring is perfect. Even ignoring bullshit artists, sometimes very competent people just aren't a good fit for the actual demands of a particular job. The question is one of tradeoffs. Are the failure modes and biases of a particular process worse than those of another one?

To me, the current standard process comes at an enormous cost. At any job I've ever had, every time I think that maybe my time there has run its course, I immediately think, ugh, but I'll have to go through the f**ing interview process. I'm not a person who does research on this, so I don't have data or anything, but I must not be alone in this, and I think it is likely a meaningful friction in the job market. (Which, I guess is good for employers, so it probably makes sense that they like the status quo!)

Yep.

When the money was raining from the sky and compensation bands were going up and you could land some job with, like, free food and microkitchens and massage points and whatever...

Then fine. I guess it's worth the drama in the interview. Those places had potential boatloads of false positives and could afford all the false negatives from potentially bogus interview processes. I trained to do interviews at Google twice and I thought the process was stupid, but it was the price of admission into their fish tank of privilege.

But now the whole process feels ridiculous. You'll grind through an interview and get the prize, and still feel in a state of total insecurity after you get the job.

Yep, it was totally worth it for me to subject myself to the big tech hiring process. I have no student loan debt and own a nice house now because I did that. (And I learned a lot and met a lot of great and unbelievably smart and talented people during my years at that job also.) But the day I did the interview panel was still one of the worst most stressful days of my life. And it gave no signal on how well I was going to do in that job. It gave a lot of signal on how well I could manage subjecting myself to a miserable ritual, which is not nothing, but it sure ain't much.