Interview knowledge
Article

You suck at technical interviews

Most technical interviews test the wrong things: memorized syntax, whiteboard coding, brand-name employers. Instead, hire for learning ability, intellectual honesty, clear communication, and basic decency. "Team fit" is bias in disguise. Homogeneity means you're hiring wrong. Good hiring is hard and slow, but worth it.

Read the original →

Highlights

Passages saved from the original.

  • Don't hire for what they already know

  • Don't hire for what they can remember in an interview room

  • Your first stage of interviewing should be attempting to answer two questions:
    • Can they do this job? This is not the same as "can they do this job right now?" but you need to be confident they can learn how to do the job.
    • Are they going to get better at this job? The answer has to be yes.

  • Relevant experience is a plus but not a requirement

  • Somebody who is constantly improving is a requirement

  • Smart and Gets Things Done™

  • Somebody who can intelligently discuss technology

  • Somebody who knows what they don't know

  • This is a conversation, not an interrogation

  • The final question: do I want to work with this person?

  • This makes it a personality test, and that makes it very, very dangerous territory. Personality is subjective, and that means you are inviting bias into the equation. Personal bias, implicit bias, unconscious bias.

  • You are NOT hiring for "team fit"

  • I have never heard a definition of "team fit" that didn't end up sounding like "let our bias run free". Phrases like "looks like they belong here" are terrifying
  • The distinction is subtle, but important: somebody who is good for your team is not necessarily somebody you want to be friends with. It's tempting to look for both, but it's the wrong metric for the success of your company and is ultimately unsustainable

  • Homogeneity is disastrous

  • Instead of hiring for "best for the job" you have accidentally hired for "looks like me".
  • The important thing to remember is that hiring a bad person is more expensive and wastes more time than waiting for a good person.

Summary AI-generated

Summarised by an AI assistant when this source was saved. Double-check against the original.

In summary, the most interesting aspect is the argument that traditional technical tests—like whiteboarding and syntax quizzes—are poor predictors of success, and that hiring for growth potential and communication skills is far more valuable than hiring for current knowledge.

  • Stop using whiteboarding, syntax tests, and prestige (degrees/big-name companies) as primary hiring metrics.
  • Prioritize candidates who demonstrate a track record of continuous learning, intellectual honesty, and the ability to communicate complex ideas.
  • Shift the interview from an interrogation to a collaborative conversation to better assess how a person actually works.
  • Implement a strict \"no assholes\" policy and avoid \"team fit\" metrics, as they often mask unconscious bias and hinder diversity.

Notes this inspired

  • Interviewing othersGrowing

    Can they do the job? Not necessarily right, now but you need to know that they can learn how to do it. Unless you have constraints that they need to be performant…