Funny thing is that i had a negative experience helping someone who was laid off. I reached out, offered help, provided excellent reference for them, covid hit and hiring froze for that particular company, followed up a few times, ghosted, never talked again.
It's you last phrase, that's the way the world and people works. It's people with their own troubles, insecurities and character. The most important bit is be yourself. If you are "built" to think and help others, keep doing it. If not, whatever.
Why put the blame only on candidates? Interviewers are equally bad to interviewees. I have been to both sides of the table and can guarantee that 80% of interviewers would not be fit for my job or the process of hiring.
I don't think the parent comment meant to 'blame' the candidates; I read this as a statistical picture. Because of how the numbers work out, the market (as measured per-interview) is flooded with bad candidates. This does not disagree with the fact that companies are _also_ usually pretty bad at interviewing.
Same story, I think. Well-paid positions at sensible low drama companies are filled quickly, while companies with glaring issues may interview and make offers to dozens of candidates before finding one who accepts the offer. So as a candidate you also see a disproportionate number of bad interviews.
Companies keep ignoring the historical interview point. I have been to a few occasions when companies needed the exact thing i built in the past (e.g. migration to clickhouse), but chose to put me into a random take home related to a different technology (e.g. some bigquery assignment) and eventually reject me. Go off script and ask me details about the project which might solve your hands, why do i need to talk about something else?
quick answer: this takes time & energy; the interviewing company is willing to miss you to save this effort. Plus the interviewers are not likely to be good at these tasks, even if they're solid developers; it's a skill they have relatively little practice and training.
I understand this for a dry candidate pool. I have been there as a hiring manager, you need some signal with take home or live interviewing. But on the rare opportunity that you find someone who is willing to talk in details about a similar project you want to do, you skip the pipeline and if he indeed built it, you hire him.
That's a typical modern SaaS issue that all departments have to keep building just to appear busy and "meet goals". Product managers to find the new shiny features, designers to design them or redesign the whole app, engineers to build them or do some framework migration and so on.
I trust they were really competent, but it's a bit depressing that these competent people will need to go through the leetcode rituals and 5-10 interviews to get a new job at Meta, Netflix, AWS or adjacent companies. That's actually the point of the original post; you are never judged by your (years of) experience or even your past companies, only by the results of a test from a random person/company.
I disagree; I don't think a full day of interviews is a huge price to pay for a FAANG job. The stakes are high for the employer, the rewards are high for successful applicants, and if you get to that stage, you've already passed a lower-stakes phone screen.
Put yourself in the employer's shoes: You want a high-quality SWE, you're prepared to pay them top dollar, but if they turn out to be not so great, it's expensive to get rid of them. Would you be satisfied by years of experience at other companies by itself, when you know that (like in many job markets) there's a big market for lemons? I wouldn't. I would want to see the candidate demonstrate some specific skills -- ideally the skills they'd be using day-to-day, but if that's not feasible for time reasons (it usually isn't), then adjacent skills that generally imply (though are not necessarily implied by) them, like recognising the shape of a toy problem, and knowing and applying the right algorithm to solve it.
I am not commenting on the interview effort-salary ratio, but the fact that credentials and experience mean nothing to the tech industry, also comparing to the rest of professions. I mean working in Google/Meta/Netflix, is like working on the best hospital if you are a doctor, in the best construction industry if you are an engineer, to best law firm if you are a lawyer, etc. Imagine having to pass a leetcode or iq test everytime you want to move to the next one. I definitely know that my cousin, who is an exceptional doctor in Greece with only 10 years of experience, laughs about it.
I think it should be the other way round: In an ideal world, everyone, including doctors and executives, should expect to have to demonstrate their skills when applying for a new job.
It's just unfortunate that there isn't (TTBOMK) an easy way of measuring, in a few hours, how good an executive is at executive-ing. Which is why the field is crammed with useless pretenders who nevertheless manage to flit from job to job, soaking up fat compensation packages before their incompetence is exposed.
I'm curious why there doesn't seem to be the same market for lemons for doctors. Or is there? How does a person actually know if a doctor is good?
> executives, should expect to have to demonstrate their skills when applying for a new job
They do. The interview process is a review of your "wins and losses" (public and verifiable is the gold standard), plus you need to complete some case studies.
That's better than nothing, but not much better -- many people have an outsize ability to "dress up" any arbitrary thing as a win, and in that case what the interviewer is really testing is a mixture of (1) that person's ability to produce wins, and (2) that person's ability to dress things up as wins.
(As far as I can see, there's no obviously better way to interview executives, since in general their actual day-to-day work -- building relationships and making strategic decisions -- takes months or years to prove out, and in any case the outcomes are heavily dependent on external factors and their ability to read them.)
This is not true. It is basically impossible to hit L7 before 30 years old. A lot of it is indirectly related to experience: What have you accomplished for us. MDs on Wall Street trading floors are similar. It is very hard (nearly impossible) to make MD before 30 in this era.
Of course it's not right. Let's be honest, our profession is in the era where software engineer = factory worker, and the worst part is that we have been playing music chairs right for the last couple years. So yeah all these professions have some steady status/wealth/qol progression and upgrade while people gain years of experience, while in software development it doesn't matter how many years of experience we have, which companies we worked on, their sector, whether your company is using the saas we were working on, etc.; we are going to get judged by trivia questions and leetcode.
Let’s hope ai hacks mailboxes and google meet, and eventually replace c suite and managers as well. We might get more ‘reasoned’ and deterministic engineering roadmaps or financial strategies by claude ceo/cto/cfo/vp/director agents than current leaderships. lol
TBH the product team in whatsapp needs to find some way to be meaningful. What could justify being a head of product or product manager in a chat app? New emojis? Gif support? New backgrounds? No, let's just make whatsapp like instagram. She's going to get a promotion now or move on to some new business as chief product officer.
No offence to the product team, i know that this is how it works in tech. It's the same for engineering and design teams in every single b2b/b2c business. There is no concept of feature completeness anymore, every single service has to copy from others or be something instead of 10 other services.
