Despoting "Interviewing and Hiring"

[koczyslaw bydlak]

Hey,

I just listen to that podcast and for me it was offensive. Like you
guys were sentence to hire people and all other people at your
companies are too stupid to do it, so you have to do it. I'm sorry
that you can't fire them.

I just don't understand, if you hate that then ask other people from
your team if they would like to try it. I bet more then one person
would like to at least try it. you could "code review" his decision
and ignore it, but at least make someone else feel like they matter.

I admit I did not listen the whole thing and after somebody said that
he does lunch interviews I turned it off. I just don't understand what
kind of insensitive monster would do that. why? a person (or a thing
that you might hire) might be under a lot of stress. what is the best
way to make him more miserable? why not go for a lunch with someone
who might decide your future? you enjoy eating with strangers when you
are stressed? I don't, you don't care.

I do know some people that stay in the same company forever, because
they are really scared of being interviewed. Maybe they don't enjoy
being rejected, because they don't have enought soft skills to sit in
front of your company's computer for 8 hours a day. they should learn
how to talk to customer - maybe train on teddy bear? its a very useful
skill when all you do is debug and write code.

on your open-source rant you forgot to mention that you only hire
people that do open-source. do you even use git at your company?

P.S. sorry if I sound a little bit angry, but trust me that being
interviewed is more stressful. you are like banks, you can't fail.

[Carl of the Posse]

You have to realize that this was a Roundup session comprised of a bunch of people that get together to vent and discuss issues that they have. I haven't listened to this one, and I don't think I was at that recording, but I wouldn't assume that any of the individual opinions expressed there are necessarily shared by the Posse members.

[Cédric Beust ♔]

On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 3:31 PM, koczyslaw bydlak <panb...@gmail.com> wrote:

I admit I did not listen the whole thing and after somebody said that
he does lunch interviews I turned it off. I just don't understand what
kind of insensitive monster would do that. why? a person (or a thing
that you might hire) might be under a lot of stress. what is the best
way to make him more miserable? why not go for a lunch with someone
who might decide your future? you enjoy eating with strangers when you
are stressed? I don't, you don't care.

I don't really understand this part. In my experience, lunches are usually the time of the day where the candidate can relax and take a break, and they usually have lunch with the person that referred them, precisely to make them more comfortable. Of course, it's an interview day so there will always be a little bit of interviewing going on, but it will certainly be more on the social side during lunch than hardcore coding problems.

And even if this is not true overall and the lunch is an entire part of the interview day, so what? Solving coding problems while eating is really not that different from solving them while not eating.

I'm not really understanding your anger here, do you think the candidate should just go have lunch by themselves for an hour and then come back for the second half of the interview?

-- 

Cédric

[Ricky Clarkson]

I reckon the angry bloke thought the interview was just the lunchtime chat, whereas you guys are talking about a whole day affair.

Less anger!

---

From: Cédric Beust ced...@beust.com

Sender: java...@googlegroups.com

Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 16:17:36 -0800

To: <java...@googlegroups.com>

ReplyTo: java...@googlegroups.com

Subject: Re: [The Java Posse] Despoting "Interviewing and Hiring"

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group.
To post to this group, send email to java...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to javaposse+...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.

[Brian Gray]

Hi koczyslaw,

I'm sorry you were offended by the session. I was in the discussion, and I just wanted to clarify a few points for others:

On Monday, November 14, 2011 6:31:56 PM UTC-5, koczyslaw bydlak wrote:

Like you guys were sentence to hire people and all other people at your
companies are too stupid to do it, so you have to do it. I'm sorry
that you can't fire them.

I didn't mean to give that impression -- my company is 90% technical folks, so we are all responsible for interviewing and hiring.  It also means it is not the main component of most of our jobs (except the 1 HR person). So I merely question sometimes if the process is there because it was well-thought out or merely momentum, and if the latter, can we do it better?  That is different than thinking others are stupid.

 

after somebody said that he does lunch interviews I turned it off. I just don't understand what
kind of insensitive monster would do that. why? a person (or a thing
that you might hire) might be under a lot of stress. what is the best
way to make him more miserable? why not go for a lunch with someone
who might decide your future? you enjoy eating with strangers when you
are stressed? I don't, you don't care.

I share Cédric's confusion here. No matter what if you are at an interview, you will have to spend time with people who will have a hand in making the hire/no hire decision. I do think that some candidates look forward to an informal lunch because it is a break from the hard programming questions. I think that because I look forward to the informal lunch. 

Someone even brought up letting the person who recommended the candidate take them to lunch to make them feel more comfortable.

(Note: I do not speak for the JavaPosse)

[koczyslaw bydlak]

I disagree about lunch interview. for me that is forcing person into a
situation that might be uncomfortable for him. at my current work
place half of the people makes food themself (its cheaper and
healthier). plus as interviewee you don't have a choice. if someone
ask you is "could we do lunch interview?" - can you really say "no"?
you can, but it might cost you the job and you might not get that job,
because you're "not a team player".

plus being stressed when you are eating is not healthy. I bet it must
be uncomfortable for everybody - its like doing anything first time.
everybody is used to normal interview process and that is hard enough.
we CANNOT prepare for a interview. I was once asked how MsSQL database/
index files are stored (or something like that). not knowing what you
will be asked is stressful.

P.S. maybe I'm a little sensitive about job interview, but I just had
one too many. most of them are with morons as interviewers (my
impression). I can only remember few good ones (where I and
interviewer learn something from each other).

[Robert Casto]

Being uncomfortable, nervous, and stressed goes with doing something new usually. Well, some people take it more easily than others. Interviews are extra stressful but I think the lunch discussion is good for the HR part of the interview. They need to know if your personality will fit with the rest of the group. You could be great technically, top of the field, and be a bomb waiting to go off. There is more to hiring than finding the right technical skills.

One interview process I went through took 6 hours with 2 people each hour and for lunch I was told about some places nearby and sent off on my own. It was in a town over 2000 miles from home. I would have enjoyed the company during that lunch as I had no clue where to go, what was in the area, or anything. I did take that job by the way. :)

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group.

To post to this group, send email to java...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to javaposse+...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.

--
Robert Casto
www.robertcasto.com
www.sellerstoolbox.com

[Cédric Beust ♔]

This might be part of the problem. An interview is *not* for interviewer and candidate to learn from each other. If you go in with this expectation, you will be disappointed. The people who interview are not here to teach you anything, they are trying to recruit the next member of the team they spend forty hours a week working with. It's a big deal and they need to make sure they are not hiring the wrong person, because such a mistake will have an impact on both their professional and personal lives (working with people you don't like or don't respect will have a negative impact on your mood when you come home at night).

That's their only goal.

Your only goal should be to impress them. That's it. Not trying to learn from them, not trying to teach them anything, just answer their questions the best you can.

As for the lunch thing, as Robert pointed out, interviewing someone is not just about testing their technical abilities but assessing their social fit as well. I would never hire a superstar programmer if I can't enjoy chatting over coffee or lunch with them. The topic doesn't really matter, it might be 100% code or the latest episode of "Dancing with the stars" for all I care, but we both need to be comfortable and feel that the conversation is flowing naturally.

Whether you realize it or not, you *are* being interviewed socially every time you are asked questions, and the setting can be either during the technical session on the board (if there is no lunch in the schedule) or in a more relaxed environment such as around a lunch table.

There might be a cultural disconnect here and I can't say I'm familiar with the way this is done in Warszawa, but if you end up interviewing with American or American-flavored companies, you should really try to learn to relax and give a good performance while having lunch with potential future coworkers.

-- 

Cédric

[Roland Tepp]

I would say, you bumped really hard into the cultural differences between US and Eastern Europe (which is where, I assume by your name, you come from)

The point of having an interview over lunch is to have an interview in a less formal setting, where both parties can get to know each other a little bit more and can get a feel of weather their personalities match and such. You can substitute that with some other informal setting, if having lunch does not suite you.

I don't know about you, but I for one hardly feel any stress in the job interview, mostly due to the realization that an interview is just as much about me interviewing my potential employers as it is about them interviewing me. Oh, there is some stress for sure, for it is always an unfamiliar grounds I am exploring, but since I realized this, the stress level is mostly down on the level of my usual comfort zone.

I haven't listened to the podcast yet, but to me it seems that you have strong reactions to some poor interview experiences in the recent past and whatever your complaints are, it looks to me you clearly overreacted on the account of your personal experiences, not on the account of the interview tips and tricks themselves, which are for the most part and in the ideal setting geared towards finding someone to work with who is both, smart, gets things done and who is kindred spirit so to speak.

A job interview is always about building a team, not about grading people and discarding unfit. So if you get rejected by an interview, you can always take it as a signal that you would not have most likely want to work in this place in the first place.

As you said yourself - stress is unhealthy and I would recommend you to follow your own advice and not to stress over the things that are out of your hands any way...

[Pavel Tcholakov]

2011/11/16 Cédric Beust ♔ <ced...@beust.com>

This might be part of the problem. An interview is *not* for interviewer and candidate to learn from each other. If you go in with this expectation, you will be disappointed. The people who interview are not here to teach you anything, they are trying to recruit the next member of the team they spend forty hours a week working with. It's a big deal and they need to make sure they are not hiring the wrong person, because such a mistake will have an impact on both their professional and personal lives (working with people you don't like or don't respect will have a negative impact on your mood when you come home at night).

That's their only goal.

Your only goal should be to impress them. That's it. Not trying to learn from them, not trying to teach them anything, just answer their questions the best you can.

The interviewee has just as much right to learn about the environment and the bunch of people that he or she is going to be spending 40+ hours a week with. Hope I'm not missing what you're trying to say but it sounds like you're a bit too biased towards the people on the hiring side in your position.

If I'm interviewing for a position, I want to learn about the culture and the organisation behind it. Sure, I'd be doing my best to impress them but I'd also be interviewing them as much as they're interviewing me.

P.

PS. I also disagree with the OP, and I am from Eastern Europe ;-) Impressing your future colleagues in an informal setting should be every bit as important as the technical stuff.

[Matthew Farwell]

I agree with what you say Cedric.

When you interview someone, you need to know if they would be able to do the job *and* if they would fit in with the current team.

And this *goes both ways*. Me, as interviewer, I'm seeing if the interviewee will fit in with the team and could do the job. You, the interviewee are seeing if you want to do the job and if you want to work with these people.

Now, when I do an interview, I want to meet the team. And why not? I'm going to live quite a lot of my life with them.

Previously, when I was the interviewee, my focus was on 'passing the interview'. Now, it's still the same, but now *they* are being interviewed at the same time. They have to pass the interview as well.

So I am pleased to eat lunch with the team. I *want* to meet them and talk to them.

Matthew Farwell.

[Robert Casto]

People forget that they will probably spend as much, or even more, time with the "team" than they will with their spouse. It is very important that there is a good fit because otherwise, everyone will feel tense or irritated and that can make the work experience less than ideal. 

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group.
To post to this group, send email to java...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to javaposse+...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.

[Bill Wohler]

I, too, disagree with the OP. The lunch is the funnest part of the
interview, both as an interviewer and as an interviewee. It's already
been mentioned that it helps to see how everyone clicks as a team. If
anything, it is less stressful, not more than in the office
environment.

[koczyslaw bydlak]

You might be right. here lunch is a personal choice and you can choose
if you want to go with co-workers, alone or eat your own food. it
doesn't matter and its just a personal preference.

maybe I have overreacted, but I just met so many idiots that do job
interviews that it was hard to hear those smartass remarks made in the
podcast.

[koczyslaw bydlak]

hmm, that seems unprofessional to not hire somebody, because you are
not meant to be best buddies. however its good to know that being shy
is a blemish. I do work with a lot of people I have never spoke about
anything else then work (not everybody works from same location) and
it does not hurt our ability to work together. just saying. I thought
I take hiring personal, but you just took it to next level.

On 16 Lis, 18:47, Cédric Beust ♔ <ced...@beust.com> wrote:

[koczyslaw bydlak]

You are 100% right. However I had interviewers that were ... close
minded? they knew the answer and just waited for you to tell them what
they wanted to hear. they also were never wrong (even if for example
they did not know java all that well). Don't get me wrong, I'm great
at interviewing (I have a lot of experience at it also), but just some
kind of behavior is really annoying to me. like for example when
interviewer expect you to know everything and he cannot understand
that you just never had a need to use some technology and that you
don't chose technology you work with (unless you work in the same
place ... forever).

I think in the podcast I heard one of the question being "what
technology was used and why". the "why" is very tricky since most
likely you were not there were those decisions were made and have to
improvise. what to tell when you really hate some technology that was
used? the best way is probably to lie. I would lie if I did not know
the answer. why did we use just jsp and servlets? because its
standard, its well tested and reliable. you just cannot trust those
new and fancy web frameworks. (the last sentence must not be the
best, but it will work for any other framework.)

[koczyslaw bydlak]

about learning from each other. maybe my curse is that I had some
great interviews also when I felt that I have learnt something. plus
you said it yourself that you must like that person. if the
interviewer can't say anything technically interesting in the
interview how can I be sure he knows what he's doing? he should know a
lot more than me or at least as much as me.

On 16 Lis, 18:47, Cédric Beust ♔ <ced...@beust.com> wrote:

[koczyslaw bydlak]

but can you really interview for that? I know a lot of people that are
great and amazing, but can also be ..... not so great when they are
pissed off/annoyed or disagree about something. I know one guy that
just won't speak to you if he's pissed off at you. it can take days
for him to come down.

plus you cannot expect person to be the same at work as he's on a
interview. I'm not, I even shave for interviews!

On 17 Lis, 18:42, Robert Casto <casto.rob...@gmail.com> wrote:
> People forget that they will probably spend as much, or even more, time
> with the "team" than they will with their spouse. It is very important that
> there is a good fit because otherwise, everyone will feel tense or
> irritated and that can make the work experience less than ideal.
>

[Cédric Beust ♔]

On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 1:40 PM, koczyslaw bydlak <panb...@gmail.com> wrote:

he should know a lot more than me or at least as much as me.

Not at all. In my opinion, the only requirement is that he have a good mastery of the questions he asks you. And by "mastery", I don't mean that he needs to know the answer (obviously) but also be able to understand unexpected answers and engage in a discussion about these with you.

Other than that, you could know a lot, lot more than he does. It's actually quite common when you interview that the people who interview you cover a wide range of levels, from juniors to seniors to directors and maybe executives. I've even seen interns interview candidates. There's really nothing wrong with that.

-- 

Cédric

[Robert Casto]

Probably not, but if you don't try, then you are basing a decision on nothing. And it is hard to hide things from lots of eyes. My favorite job was after 6 hours of interviewing with a total of 12 people. You can bet that they all sat in a room and discussed a great many things about me. There can still be problems with the decision, but the chances are less likely if you give it a good try.

That interview was the hardest one I have ever gone through. But then, so did everyone else I worked with. That meant everyone had to be that good and get through the process. You might not like it, but it is done for a reason. It is expensive for a company to hire someone. And making a mistake not only looses money, but time which cannot be regained.

As a side note, I just want to mention that this is a public forum and potential employers do search the Internet. 

[Cédric Beust ♔]

On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 8:25 PM, Robert Casto <casto....@gmail.com> wrote:

Probably not, but if you don't try, then you are basing a decision on nothing. And it is hard to hide things from lots of eyes. My favorite job was after 6 hours of interviewing with a total of 12 people.

This is a very, *very* good point. I can't upvote it enough. Oh wait, this is email, I can't upvote anything. But you get my point.

The best jobs I ever had were after hours of grueling, tough, sweat inducing interviews. I had offer letters with more money and more prestigious companies waiting for my signature, but I thought the interviews they gave me were pretty lame and too easy. It sounds nice at first, but when you think about it, do you really want to work with people who went through interviews that were so obviously easy or would you rather go with the company that stumped you on on a few questions but with the assurance that everyone you'll work with will have successfully survived a similar process?

I have never regretted my decision to go with the latter.

As a side note, I just want to mention that this is a public forum and potential employers do search the Internet. 

Another good point, and a good motivation to NBAD ("Never Be A D*") on the Internet.

-- 

Cédric