Big Tech that has announced return to the office - usually as a hybrid setup with 2/3 days/week - and when it's due:
- Microsoft: 28 March
- Meta: 28 March
- Google: 4 April
- Apple: 11 April
Who wins: policy? Exceptions for devs threatening to quit? Startups hiring remote?
🍿
For all the above companies, the plan has always been to return the office.
What has changed since is how many of their competitors became remote-first since. E.g. Twitter, Shopify. And how well-funded startups are hiring full-remote and are desperate to hire from these places.
Several DMs later:
Google, Microsoft and Facebook are all extremely chill about engineers coming back to the office. Most engineers I talked to won’t go back / have exceptions / their manager allowing remote.
Only place where it’s serious is Apple. Seems no way out there.
At Meta, today was the deadline to request a remote exception. The people I talked with all expect to get the exception. Eng managers are banket approving all of them and many assured folks that they won’t track who comes when or who doesn’t.
All eyes on what happens at Apple.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
"Leetcode-style / DSA / algorithmical interviews are useless and don't measure what's really expected on the job. They are also inefficient, and companies using these are hiring for the wrong people."
Heard this SO many times.
The responses almost always miss the point.
I'll do a longer post one day, but a few thoughts:
1. YOU are not Big Tech. You probably don't have 1,000+ qualified applicants show up for an entry-level job posting and 100+ for a senior posting - in just a day or two, without advertising it
2. When a company gets large enough combined with #1, the game becomes not reducing false negatives but reducing false positives to zero
3. "LeetCode-style interviews are BS and don't measure what you do on the job." Yes. This is part of the reason. Guess what else is BS at Big Tech? A lot of stuff? Do you think people who are unwilling to put up with BS (that has historic context and can be internalized) would last at these companies? No: they would quit shortly or be pushed out as they refuse to do what everyone else does. These interviews conveniently self-select for people who can and do put up with BS
4. Career ladders. There is a notion that a Principal engineer should be as good or better than a new grad in every area - including algo coding. Like it or not, it's how it is
5. Technical managers. Many of these companies expect managers to pass the same bar. Like it or not, again: the reality is at these places many (probably all) line managers can code, and can do it very well.
6. Scalability of process. Have you ever had the challenge of onboarding 120 new interviewers in a month? Every quarter? These companies have this problem.
7. If it ain't broken: don't fix it.
Look at the business results of Big Tech. If the interview process would be broken, it would show up in eg shipping slower and being outcompeted by competition etc. In reality: Big Tech is more nimble than ever. E.g. Threads, Copilot, Gemini etc. Their interview process works *for them*
8. You are probably not Big Tech and don't have to solve for this very distinct set of problems.
Remind me how Big Tech hiring is broken when they built a new social media network in 6 months from idea to launch. This was 2x faster than e.g. Bluesky (a nimble and amazing startup btw)
The problem is not how these very large companies interview: they've done this for a long time, and will keep doing it for a long time.
The problem is mindlessly copying this approach for companies that would want to optimize for other stuff and don't have the same situation. Like they don't have a massive number of qualified candidates streaming in the door. Or they might want to reduce false negatives as well. Or they are willing to invest more thoughtfulness into a different interview process as they don't need to worry about scaling it like a large company does etc.
Plenty of smaller companies don't follow the algo interviews, btw. Of course it all comes with tradeoffs: e.g. those companies will often have to invest a lot more effort per candidate / update interviews more frequently when questions leak etc.
Don't forget the goal of any interview process is to balance between getting enough signal to confirm this person will be a stellar new hire - while minimizing the process needed for this (and the time investment + annoyance for the candidate).
The most candidate-friendly interview process is this:
"Oh, Jenny here says you were superb to work with. Here's an offer, want to join us?"
No effort for the candidate, but the company might be taking a risk (depending on the quality of recommendation) plus this process excludes anyone who has not worked with someone at the company.
A company expecting staff to work in-office 2-3 days per week will increasingly prefer in-person (final round) interviews.
If they pay top of market: this itself will be enough for most candidates to do it. The payoff is high enough, after all.
In-person interviews also negate all "cheating" that can be done with AI. It also means existing interview formats (eg algo interview, sytems design etc) don't need to be changed to remain as effective as before!
Previous research via @Pragmatic_Eng on GenAI changing tech interviews (given most engineers use these for work already, of course they are changing interviews as well!)
Developers are some of the most demanding customers to please with developer tools, and are one of the hardest business to make a profit in.
When we feel something is a ripoff... we'll build ourselves/migrate/adopt a new tool.
Often out of spite!
Can't really point to another business where customers will sometimes leave a vendor even if it costs them a *lot more* to migrate off, or build a tool.
Unsaid is how it's professionally satisfying to prove that we can build a complex tool, plus it's often rewarded by leadership as well!
"Our equity platform doubled pricing? No clue what they do, why do you ask me"
"Our feature flagging vendor wants to push us into a higher tier to keep SSO and would cost us an additional $3,000 per year (10% increase)?
I'll build a new FF system in a week, saving us $10K**
** not counting development, migration, maintenance and opportunity cost. But seriously how hard can it be to build feature flags: I'll show them!