←back to thread

1764 points fatihky | 3 comments | | HN request time: 0.862s | source
Show context
DannyBee ◴[] No.12701869[source]
FWIW: As a director of engineering for Google, who interviews other directors of engineering for Google, none of these are on or related to the "director of engineering" interview guidelines or sheets.

These are bog standard SWE-SRE questions (particularly, SRE) at some companies, so my guess is he was really being evaluated for a normal SWE-SRE position.

IE maybe he applied to a position labeled director of engineering, but they decided to interview him for a different level/job instead.

But it's super-strange even then (i've literally reviewed thousands of hiring packets, phone screens, etc, and this is ... out there. I'm not as familiar with SRE hiring practices, admittedly, though i've reviewed enough SRE candidates to know what kind of questions they ask).

As for the answers themselves, i always take "transcripts" of interviews (or anything else) with a grain of salt, as there are always two sides to every story.

Particularly, when one side presents something that makes the other side look like a blithering idiot, the likelihood it's 100% accurate is, historically, "not great".

replies(28): >>12702181 #>>12702207 #>>12702219 #>>12702265 #>>12702346 #>>12702460 #>>12702555 #>>12702650 #>>12702692 #>>12702698 #>>12702714 #>>12702888 #>>12702998 #>>12703034 #>>12703135 #>>12703156 #>>12703184 #>>12703554 #>>12703778 #>>12704177 #>>12704657 #>>12705201 #>>12705560 #>>12705982 #>>12706518 #>>12707763 #>>12708151 #>>12714459 #
potatolicious ◴[] No.12702692[source]
Disclaimer: I also work for Google, opinions are my own, etc etc.

> "i always take "transcripts" of interviews (or anything else) with a grain of salt"

I mean sure, a single instance of this might be overblown, exaggerated, or false in some way.

But there is an avalanche of reports like this, to the point where it's become widespread industry insider knowledge.

I enjoy working here, but the interviewing practices are such that I actively warn friends applying/being referred to temper their expectations of a repeatable/reliable process.

Most colleagues I've spoken to about this, including myself, have strong doubts we would have made the cut if we interviewed again - even though all are strong engineers with great perf records.

At what point do we start taking reports like these seriously? We don't have to accept every detail of the reporting as gospel, but there's clearly something here.

replies(5): >>12702806 #>>12702880 #>>12702895 #>>12703241 #>>12703541 #
serge2k ◴[] No.12702895[source]
> At what point do we start taking reports like these seriously

My guess is when the number of applications per position actually drops far enough that the false negative rate starts to hurt.

Until then, an interview processed optimized for avoiding false positives at all costs will persist. Totally makes sense for a company worth hundreds of billions though, can you imagine if they had a few more bad hires sneak in? Oh my god, it would destroy everything.

replies(3): >>12702928 #>>12703037 #>>12703442 #
pjmlp ◴[] No.12703442[source]
It happens all the time Google acquires a new company, those employees aren't going through these crazy interview processes.
replies(1): >>12703573 #
1. dekhn ◴[] No.12703573[source]
actually, acquisitions normally trigger full interviews- see "Chaos Monkeys" for a description how this happened at Twitter/Facebook.
replies(1): >>12704034 #
2. pjmlp ◴[] No.12704034[source]
Is this an US thing?

I went through three acquisitions and never had any interview, besides the set of meetings for each of us to decide to go along with the acquisition or get a severance package.

replies(1): >>12706569 #
3. BinaryIdiot ◴[] No.12706569[source]
I think it all depends on the requirements of the company doing the acquisition. I've gone through several myself and did not have to re-interview however I have heard of a employees claiming Google required them to re-interview which has got to be nerve racking considering Google's heavy focus on avoiding false positives a lot of good people don't pass them.