I always close every interview round with the question, "At this point, are there any concerns that you have that might prevent me from moving on to the next round in the interview process?" I love it for several reasons. 1, it's quite disarming. Folks don't usually expect someone to be so forward about the situation, and it invites a candid discussion. 2, it affords you early feedback. One of the worst parts about the interview process is that the interviewee rarely gets appropriate feedback during the process. 3, and arguably most importantly, if any of the feedback you get is negative, you have an early chance to address it before any mulling and review happens. You can clarify points that may have been misinterpreted. Conversely, if the negative feedback does not make sense, it may be indicative that the team you are entertaining joining is not for you.
Yep, that's one of my favorites too, for the exact reasons you described. Sometimes they demur with "Well, it's up to the committee..." and I (lovingly!) push back with "Of course! I realize you can't promise anything, it's a joint decision. I'm just asking what sorts of concerns you yourself might relay to that committee."
Oct 25, 2023·edited Oct 25, 2023Liked by Simon Lepkin
One question I've used that short-circuits several others -- really giving insight into what's going on -- is "Do you have retros? What issues were discussed in the most recent retro?" This gives so much insight into dynamics, process maturity, psychological safety ... I use it every single time I'm asked to ask questions in an interview with an "Agile" shop (and the good news is, everyone now thinks they're doing Agile).
And I've gotten really good insight into what the team is really doing, and how they're doing it.
You usually don't have enough time to ask many questions at the end of each round. Also, "tell me about a time" questions yield answers that might not be representative of the day to day culture. Thus my main two questions are:
1 - From 1 to 10, how much do you like working here and why?
2 - Why isn't it a 10? or what can be improved?
These yield the true degree of excitement of the interviewer about their job and tells you about what they like and dislike which cover culture, working conditions and and random issues. Asking these each round will give you a pretty good picture of what's life inside.
Yeah, that's true, you usually have to limit yourself to 1-2 questions (except on the behavioral interview(s), or when you knock a technical interview out of the park).
I have to admit that I never liked the 1-10 question, though. 1-10 is a huge range, and worse, this question lends itself to unexamined, generalized answers. Example:
"I give it a 9, because the people are great!"
"Why 9 and not 10?"
"umm.... I guess the technical debt?" [You have learned absolutely nothing.]
"How frequently do you collaborate with all those great people?"
"Oh... I think I did once last year. But they're all very nice people." [This is one data point that indicates collaboration is rare. Check with others to confirm this.]
"Tell me about a time" questions force the person to self-examine and provide evidence, instead of going off their gut instinct.
Sure, folks can fabricate a story, but it's even easier to fabricate a number. I agree that it's hard to fake excitement, but you can gauge excitement just as easily when they're telling a story as when they're explaining a number.
You can compare the number, even if made up, with the person's excitement while they tell you the number. And if they're trying to make it rosier, you can smell it.
Everyone can tell a story about a time when things worked great, even if the reality is they usually don't. You then can't trust the answer and it's hard to smell bullshit.
Let me just call out Isaac Adam's great, recent article on a related topic: https://betterprogramming.pub/how-engineers-can-identify-good-and-avoid-bad-companies-d241b94ee2ff.
He gives an exhaustive breakdown of methodologies you can use to assess a company from the outside.
I always close every interview round with the question, "At this point, are there any concerns that you have that might prevent me from moving on to the next round in the interview process?" I love it for several reasons. 1, it's quite disarming. Folks don't usually expect someone to be so forward about the situation, and it invites a candid discussion. 2, it affords you early feedback. One of the worst parts about the interview process is that the interviewee rarely gets appropriate feedback during the process. 3, and arguably most importantly, if any of the feedback you get is negative, you have an early chance to address it before any mulling and review happens. You can clarify points that may have been misinterpreted. Conversely, if the negative feedback does not make sense, it may be indicative that the team you are entertaining joining is not for you.
Yep, that's one of my favorites too, for the exact reasons you described. Sometimes they demur with "Well, it's up to the committee..." and I (lovingly!) push back with "Of course! I realize you can't promise anything, it's a joint decision. I'm just asking what sorts of concerns you yourself might relay to that committee."
One question I've used that short-circuits several others -- really giving insight into what's going on -- is "Do you have retros? What issues were discussed in the most recent retro?" This gives so much insight into dynamics, process maturity, psychological safety ... I use it every single time I'm asked to ask questions in an interview with an "Agile" shop (and the good news is, everyone now thinks they're doing Agile).
And I've gotten really good insight into what the team is really doing, and how they're doing it.
Strongly agree with this. I might even add "and what was the outcome of that retro?" though as Gui pointed out, it's all too easy to run out of time.
You usually don't have enough time to ask many questions at the end of each round. Also, "tell me about a time" questions yield answers that might not be representative of the day to day culture. Thus my main two questions are:
1 - From 1 to 10, how much do you like working here and why?
2 - Why isn't it a 10? or what can be improved?
These yield the true degree of excitement of the interviewer about their job and tells you about what they like and dislike which cover culture, working conditions and and random issues. Asking these each round will give you a pretty good picture of what's life inside.
Hi Gui!
Yeah, that's true, you usually have to limit yourself to 1-2 questions (except on the behavioral interview(s), or when you knock a technical interview out of the park).
I have to admit that I never liked the 1-10 question, though. 1-10 is a huge range, and worse, this question lends itself to unexamined, generalized answers. Example:
"I give it a 9, because the people are great!"
"Why 9 and not 10?"
"umm.... I guess the technical debt?" [You have learned absolutely nothing.]
"How frequently do you collaborate with all those great people?"
"Oh... I think I did once last year. But they're all very nice people." [This is one data point that indicates collaboration is rare. Check with others to confirm this.]
"Tell me about a time" questions force the person to self-examine and provide evidence, instead of going off their gut instinct.
Folks can fabricate/exaggerate/game the "tell me about a time" answer, but it's very hard to fake excitement.
You can tell if the 9 answer is really a 9 or a 7 plus some amount of salesmamship, and in both cases that gives you a lot of signal.
Sure, folks can fabricate a story, but it's even easier to fabricate a number. I agree that it's hard to fake excitement, but you can gauge excitement just as easily when they're telling a story as when they're explaining a number.
You can compare the number, even if made up, with the person's excitement while they tell you the number. And if they're trying to make it rosier, you can smell it.
Everyone can tell a story about a time when things worked great, even if the reality is they usually don't. You then can't trust the answer and it's hard to smell bullshit.