Google's “Director of Engineering” Hiring Test

Why not? Especially in a managerial position, you will occasionally need to build a rapport with people who are convinced they have good technical knowledge, but don't. Being able to talk to them productively instead of picking fights is a skill worth selecting for.

If you can't figure out that the first person who's interviewing you has answers on a sheet of paper and you're supposed to parrot them until you get to the second person, how are you ever going to figure out that the first person you're selling to has some business requirements on a sheet of paper and you'll never get to the second person until you parrot those?

"Oh, we're not actually using Docker, we're using rkt, which is a compatible reimplementation of --" "I'm sorry, I've been told Docker is a requirement. We can't use your Cuber Netty thing until you support it. Bye!"

It's totally dependent on the type of person being interviewed. There is a difference between "knowing how to work in a team" "knowing when to be civil, when to push, when to go to battle", and wanting to parrot answers in order to just get to the next step.

If it were me, I'd try to engage with the recruiter and make them go completely off book. I'd ask them about their career, and try to find a different job for them (instead of reading stuff off a sheet of paper), or if that's what they are content to do, try to escalate and get them to reveal their "client" or "person they report to" (which in recuiting is a no-no) - I think I have the confidence and social skills to try to do that (I've talked past border officials, and various recruiters, and having been in a tele-job where I had to follow a script, I know exactly where a script reader is most likely to go off book if I ask something at exactly the right time). I am in no way qualified for a director of engineering position, but I can very easily get past this telephone screening, because precisely I've been the person asking this kind of question and using this kind of script. If I got past this screening, I'd be wasting the time of the person next in line for the interview.

Of course, it is a valid strategy to get an interviewee to follow along, but it's misguided - using the entirely wrong tool (scripted questions/answers) for doing the job (finding someone with managerial and people talent).

Have an up-vote. This is the most plausible explanation. They're testing his social skills and how he deals with people who are less technical than he--not testing his technical knowledge.

EDIT: To add to this, I've seen this tactic before on an interview. Interviewer asked me a pretty softball technical question, I nailed it, and then he said, "No, you're wrong, it's [OBVIOUSLY INCORRECT ANSWER]." He was clearly trying to gauge how well I handle someone who thinks they know what they are talking about, but actually do not--which can a surprisingly large number of people in the office.

The most plausible explanation is the guy failed the interview, felt bad about it, then wrote a version of it to make him look good and Google bad to punish them.

> Being able to talk to them productively instead of picking fights is a skill worth selecting for.

Perhaps, but if the story is true, then it's wishful thinking to assume Google tried to do just that by putting a moron or someone acting like one in the recruiter chair. That way you risk hiring a quick talker who can talk, joke or laugh his/her way out of a wrong answer. If technical skills don't really matter, it's fine though.

That would be totally dishonest.

I find the thought more plausible that Google had 100s or 1000s of candidates and they weren't willing to interview all of them directly because most are usually crap, so they let some incompetent contractor do a pre-screening.

This isn't the only interview. But if you can't pass this one, technical skills won't excuse that, yes.

Really doubt that based on those questions. Recruiters are human and fallible. They form opinions about people, sometimes incorrect, and act on those opinions all the time. This phone screen is the final step before they lose control of the candidate process to the technical team.

Recruiters do reject candidates and create false negative situations when it comes to positions that have a lot of candidates and very few openings. For Google, that would be every position, especially engineering.

I really wish our industry could create some generally trusted benchmarks of skill that we could take once and then be done with. As things are, we have to prove basic programming skill with every employer. You'd think this wouldn't be necessary with more than a decade of experience and several degrees in computer science from eminent institutions, but apparently it is. I'm fine with employers asking very particular questions about the domain of work, but we shouldn't have to prove sanity all over again every time.