A ๐งต about tech interviews:
The technical interview is one of the most contentious aspects of the recruiting process IMHO. Hiring managers and orgs don't always handle it well and candidates get beat up with anxiety from the process. So how do we make it better?
1/
The technical interview is one of the most contentious aspects of the recruiting process IMHO. Hiring managers and orgs don't always handle it well and candidates get beat up with anxiety from the process. So how do we make it better?
1/
When I interviewed for my role at @Snyksec, I thought I bombed my tech interview. Benji asked me a couple questions about concepts I had never heard of before.
I admitted I didn't know the answer, but then shared a bit of logical deduction based on the terms as to what
2/
I admitted I didn't know the answer, but then shared a bit of logical deduction based on the terms as to what
2/
I thought they may mean. I was sure I had really messed up. However, I got an offer and shortly after I started I found out he thought I did very well and actually had recommended hiring me based off the interview. He told me he liked how I thought about things and that I was
3/
3/
able to use my existing knowledge to show some understanding of new concepts.
To me, that's the proper way to leverage a technical interview. I deplore "practical" tests and labs. They're simply not a good measure of a candidates abilities. Do we really want to assess their
4/
To me, that's the proper way to leverage a technical interview. I deplore "practical" tests and labs. They're simply not a good measure of a candidates abilities. Do we really want to assess their
4/
ability to pass a test under extreme duress? Or do we instead want to evaluate their cognitive problem solving and solutioning capabilities? Do we need to make sure they know the exact usage of an object or command without Google, or do we want to see them apply knowledge to
5/
5/
unfamiliar situations and innovate with new ideas?
This is why I feel like these "objective" tests need to go away. They're anything but objective, they're completely fraught with bias and ultimately counter-productive.
The technical interview should be about evaluating how
6/
This is why I feel like these "objective" tests need to go away. They're anything but objective, they're completely fraught with bias and ultimately counter-productive.
The technical interview should be about evaluating how
6/
a candidate can function given a technical challenge or dilemma. We should be looking for creative ideas, not regurgitation of the "right" answer.
Candidates for their part should be encouraged to admit openly when they don't know the answer. Take them out of the situation
7/
Candidates for their part should be encouraged to admit openly when they don't know the answer. Take them out of the situation
7/
where they feel like a guess has a better chance of success than admitting their limits. Candidates should feel empowered to show their strengths and their unique value, not forced to try to fit the exact approach we think is best. Let them wow you, not set them up to fail.
8/
8/
This is just one way, among many, that we can reduce bias, address the diversity issues we have, and even identify quality entry level candidates who would be wildly powerful additions.
Think differently about the tech interview and #DoBetterBeBetter
/FIN
Think differently about the tech interview and #DoBetterBeBetter
/FIN
โข โข โข
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
ใ
