Interviews as seen by HR and the candidate
-
There are more things you could ask about even if the job description is good, though.
As a software engineer I like to ask questions about the team dynamic. I'm not interested in working with a bunch of bros, so having some diversity in the team is good.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]I dont know. Maybe ive been unlucky but "diversity" has meant a lot of people with very different personalities, which has meant that people dont become friends. Has it meant something different to you? Maybe for you its the other way, and you dont have anything incommon with the typical worker (whatever bro means in this context, maybe males and you are female?) , so you welcome more people like yourself.
Doesnt everyone actually want collegues that are as close to yourself in personality as possible so you feel you have common ground?
-
It's either a business relation on both sides or it's a personal relation on both sides.
I was in Tech in Europe through the transition from when employees were people and the company was loyal to them and expected loyalty to the company in return (the age of lifetime employment), to the world we live in now were employees are "human resources", and for a great part of that period there was this thing were most employers expected employees to stay with the company whilst the company needed them and be dedicated to the company, whilst in return they treated employees as a business relationship with (in Tech) some manipulative "fake friendship" stuff thrown in (the ultimate examples: company paid pizza dinner when people stay working on a project till late, or the yearly company party, rather than, you know, paying people better or sizing the team to fit the work that needs to be done rather than relying on unpaid overwork) - still today we see this kind of shit very obviously and very purposefully done in places like Google.
Of course the "humour" part here is that plenty of managerial and HR people in companies still expect that employees are loyal to the company even all the while they treat them as disposable cogs who it's fine to exploit without consideration for their feelings or welfare - or going back to the first paragraph of this post: they relate to employees as a business relationship whilst expecting the employees related to the company as a personal relationship (often a "second family").
If I'm working late on something, I expect to be paid for that time and the company can provide a meal.
You're not paying me? I'll see you later then.
-
Let's stop mincing words here.
You want me because I have a particular set of skills that you think will be helpful to you in your pursuit of profit.
I want your job because I can leverage the skills I have for money and benefits that will provide food, and shelter.
Your main concerns are profits.
My main concerns are survival.
Employment is where these things meet in the middle. Let's not pretend that we're here because we're friends. We are not family. Fuck you, pay me.
Short version. My boss pays me enough so I don't quit, and I work hard enough so he doesn't fire me.
-
I like reading the comments more than the post itself
Same. There's so much here that's just excellent.
-
Once I started burning companies the way they've burned me for years, employment got a lot better.
Fuck me? Nah, fuck you.
you won't get a good referral!
bitch, they won't call you anyway. I gave them my boss's personal cell number(my cousin).
Your cousin is Art Vandaly?
-
This post did not contain any content.
I couldn't give less of a fuck about any company or their "projects", selling a product is not a mission to empower users and help the world or some bullshit like that.
-
I've never understood why the HR people always see "not asking questions about the company" or "not demonstrating knowledge about the company" as such a red flag.
People are looking for a job, not a cult to join.
Researching the company used to be a thing you did when selecting a career/lifetime position.
.... Since that doesn't happen anymore, I couldn't give any less of a shit about what your company is all about. I can do thing, you want to pay me to do thing. It's as simple as that. All the rest of this crap, I just don't have the time, effort or shits to give.
-
Jesus Christ, yes, I am a comfort hunter. You think I get up at the ass crack of dawn every day for fun? You think I want to push buttons on a computer all day because I'm just weirdly into it?
No! I do this shit because I have to!
Fucking hell. I've already accepted that I have to make your company money if I want to live in a house. For the love of all that is good in this world, PLEASE do not make me pretend to like it. I'm already weirded out that you're so into it.
Making you pretend to like it is HR's kink.
-
A lot of what you’re saying is spot on and I respect your experience in this and the other comment.
I don’t hire for fun though. I hire for a diversity of perspectives, integrity and authenticity. We teach people how to constructively challenge and go after problems or objectives that may have no off the shelf solution (if they do, we may acquire it).
The problems are usually P&L quantified and prioritised before they get to us - we only have to do that legwork if it’s something we’ve generated.
It does feel like a playground to a degree and I do love the work - perhaps yes it’s less ‘professional’ and structured. We do have experienced devs and architects who I would hope aren’t reproducing problems - but it’s often our job to find a technical solution (if appropriate) to a problem, not to ‘productionise’ it or maintain it. This involves a handoff to others in the business and they ultimately determine how it is rolled out.
I get that this isn’t typical of the market and thanks for your response / take on this. One thing we have to be careful of is being ‘institutionalised’ and that will come across as naive, perhaps it is, but that has been a help.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]Sounds to me like you're doing the fun part of the job - "solving challenging problems" - without having to do the vast majority of the work (which is seldom as much fun), such as making it suitable for actual end users, integration with existing systems and/or migration, maintaining it during its entire life-cycle, supporting it (which for devs generally means 3rd level support) and so on.
So not exactly a typical environment from which to derive general conclusions about what are the best characteristics for a professional in software engineering in general.
Mind you, I don't disagree that if what you're doing is basically skunworks, you want enthusiastic people who aren't frozen into a certain set of habits and technologies: try shit out to see if it works kind of people rather than the kind that asks themselves "how do I make this maintainable and safe to extend for the innevitable extra requirements in the future".
Having been on both sides of the fence, in my experience the software that comes from such skunkworks teams tends to be horribly designed, not suitable for production and often requires a total rewrite and similarly looking back at when I had that spirit, the software I made was shit for anything beyond the immediacy of "solving the problem at hand".
(Personally when I had to hire mid-level and above devs, one of my criteria was if they had already been through the full life cycle for a project of theirs - having to maintain and support your own work really is the only way to undrestand and even burn into one's brain the point and importance of otherwise "unexplained" good practices in software development and design).
Mind you, I can get your problem with people who indeed are just jobsworths - I've had to deal with my share of people who should've chosen a different professional occupation - but you might often confuse the demands and concerns of people from the production side as "covering their asses bullshit" when they're in fact just the product of them working on short, mid and long term perspectives in terms of the software life-cycle and in a broader context hence caring about things like extensability, maintenability and systems integration, whilst your team's concerns end up pretty much at the point were you're delivering stuff that "works, now, in laboratory conditions". Certainly, I've seen this dynamic of misunderstandings between "exploratory" and "production" teams, especially the skunkworks team because they tend to be younger people who never did anything else, whilst the production team (if they're any good) is much more likely to have at least a few people who, when they were junior, did the same kind of work as the skunkworks guys.
Then again, sometimes it really is "jobsworths who should never have gone into software development" covering their asses and minimizing their own hassle.
-
Let's stop mincing words here.
You want me because I have a particular set of skills that you think will be helpful to you in your pursuit of profit.
I want your job because I can leverage the skills I have for money and benefits that will provide food, and shelter.
Your main concerns are profits.
My main concerns are survival.
Employment is where these things meet in the middle. Let's not pretend that we're here because we're friends. We are not family. Fuck you, pay me.
Unfortunately, many companies don't care about PR anymore. In the past, some would try to appear "we are family" to retain employees. Now it is everyone for themselves.
-
This post did not contain any content.
I actually kinda agree with both here.
It sucks working with someone who is utterly disinterested in the work, if it's anything above rote work.
Asking the candidate what they found interesting about it is at least a basically fine idea. If they can't answer when you ask, that actually is kinda concerning.
Big difference between asking and expecting them to volunteer the information.At the same time, if the people interviewing you can't even pretend to show basic conversational courtesy by asking some basic "what do you do for fun" style questions or anything that shows they're gonna be interested in the person they're looking to work with, that's a major concern.
-
I dont know. Maybe ive been unlucky but "diversity" has meant a lot of people with very different personalities, which has meant that people dont become friends. Has it meant something different to you? Maybe for you its the other way, and you dont have anything incommon with the typical worker (whatever bro means in this context, maybe males and you are female?) , so you welcome more people like yourself.
Doesnt everyone actually want collegues that are as close to yourself in personality as possible so you feel you have common ground?
I'm a straight white dude who goes to work to do work, not to find someone to party with. The common ground is having the same job.
My current team has the following composition:
- Two straight white guys in their 40s, one of whom is an immigrant
- One gay white guy in his 30s
- One straight Indian guy in his 50s
- One straight Indian woman in her 20s
- One straight black guy in his 20s
We all get along just fine. Sometimes I learn something new about a different culture or lifestyle.
Not all aspects of diversity are equally important. I've been in teams before where everyone else was Argentinian. I've had teams where everyone else was Indian. I've had teams where we were all straight white dudes. They were all fine.
The most important part of diversity for me is a nice spread in experience level, which usually means a spread in age. I like training people who are more junior than me, but I also like someone more senior to learn from. Having someone more senior than me also prevents me from gliding into a role where I only train people or review their work, which I'm not personally interested in.
-
This post did not contain any content.
What about us resonated with you?
Your offer to pay me.
-
I actually kinda agree with both here.
It sucks working with someone who is utterly disinterested in the work, if it's anything above rote work.
Asking the candidate what they found interesting about it is at least a basically fine idea. If they can't answer when you ask, that actually is kinda concerning.
Big difference between asking and expecting them to volunteer the information.At the same time, if the people interviewing you can't even pretend to show basic conversational courtesy by asking some basic "what do you do for fun" style questions or anything that shows they're gonna be interested in the person they're looking to work with, that's a major concern.
I disagree because most people are applying for everything. So many people are putting in dozens of applications a day. "What resonated with you" is the fact that they're hiring at all. You can learn to love a job and find satisfaction in the work even if the company didn't "resonate" with you.
-
If I'm working late on something, I expect to be paid for that time and the company can provide a meal.
You're not paying me? I'll see you later then.
The amount of underpaid/unpaid overtime I've heard of is terrible. At this point I will always ask if someone gets paid 1.5x if they're hourly working overtime, or if they're classed as salary exempt from OT pay. The former is blatantly illegal yet still happens often enough, while the latter can be legal but is usually taken advantage of with no compensated days.
-
I disagree because most people are applying for everything. So many people are putting in dozens of applications a day. "What resonated with you" is the fact that they're hiring at all. You can learn to love a job and find satisfaction in the work even if the company didn't "resonate" with you.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]Right? What resonated? Well it mostly the need to not starve to death and have a roof over my head. What about you?
-
Once I started burning companies the way they've burned me for years, employment got a lot better.
Fuck me? Nah, fuck you.
you won't get a good referral!
bitch, they won't call you anyway. I gave them my boss's personal cell number(my cousin).
I've been asked for a referral twice in my life. Both times the person the referral was for still worked for me, so I got them to write it and just sent it on.
If somebody wants more money than we pay I won't stand in their way. I also don't care if you get a good employee or not. Shit, I'd write a complete dumb-ass a glowing referral if you're a rival company.
-
Unfortunately, many companies don't care about PR anymore. In the past, some would try to appear "we are family" to retain employees. Now it is everyone for themselves.
some would try to appear “we are family” to retain employees
Nope. Rule of acquisition 111. They claim that everyone is part of a happy family because family is easiest to exploit.
-
Shocked Pikachu
People will work FOR MONEY!??!
- every HR team ever.
Ours tried to explain to project leaders that employees are not mostly interested in their salary, but in praise. That went over well.
-
I disagree because most people are applying for everything. So many people are putting in dozens of applications a day. "What resonated with you" is the fact that they're hiring at all. You can learn to love a job and find satisfaction in the work even if the company didn't "resonate" with you.
Sure. I wouldn't disqualify someone for being ambivalent towards what we're working on, but the person who seems interested is gonna be better to work with.
Likewise when looking for a place to work, if the tangibles are equivalent I'll prefer the place with better intangibles.
I'm not in HR or management, so I don't care about cost effectiveness or productivity beyond "not screwing me over". From that perspective, it's generally nicer to work with someone who finds it interesting than with someone who doesn't.
There's no point asking "why do you want to work here", because the answer is obviously a combination of money and benefits, and how food and healthcare keeps you from being dead.
I can't fault an interviewer who's clearly trying not to ask the obvious question and instead actually ask how the candidate feels about the work instead of disqualifying them for not volunteering the right answer.It's not unreasonable for an employer to ask a candidate how they feel about the work anymore than it's unreasonable for the candidate to ask about the working environment.
