I once had a SW interview with a job that had a 2-hour long personality test. No tech questions. Just random questions to test my personality. It started out simple, like 'what was the last book you read' to more in-depth situations that had nothing to do with the job.
The manager interviewing me (who admit he basically just started managing a month prior) told me he just read a 'great book on management' and wanted to 'try this out'. I passed the first interview, but the second was going to be a 5-hour remote codeshare/whiteboard interview with the team. I declined the second interview.
I ended up choosing the job that had no whiteboard interview or personality test. It was just a simple conversation with the tech lead about my previous experience and if I had the experience to work on their current system.
It was the best job I ever had and they are still my client almost 5 years later.
Two years ago, I had a similar experience with Chainlink. I underwent hours of interviews and completed an extensive work assignment, only to be offered the job _after a personality test_.
Simultaneously, I interviewed at a startup. There, I spent about an hour discussing my experience and providing feedback on their current system with the person who would become my manager.
I chose the startup, and it has been the best job decision I've ever made.
Personality tests can disclose a lot of personal information. It's unclear where this data might end up or who might have access to it. I detest this practice and consider it a major red flag.
This reminds me when I tried incredibly hard to get a tiny scholarship to study abroad in country X and got rejected. In fact, there were several rounds and I didn't even make the first one. My Prof. told me to go to country Y and I hesitated because of the immense administrative burden to apply again and since I was de facto not qualified for a postgraduate scholarship. But application was easy, I got it, and they stuffed me with money.
I always remember the words of my Professor: "Don't you know that everything where you have to invest a lot (I assume effort, time, money, energy) nothing ever comes out?
So if your IT job requires a letter of recommendation from the pope and even if you are able to get the letter, you are unlikely to get the job. :-)
Personality tests are screening principally if you are Conscientious and Agreeable. The hack is:
Suggest you answer every question to imply you are orderly, hardworking, calm, stable and cooperative with others.
Part of being a grownup is coming around to the fact that if someone you just met clearly doesn't trust you, that's 95% about their issues, not yours.
Then it becomes a question not of whether you're 'worthy' of a job with these people, but whether you really want to walk into a place that is telegraphing this much paranoia.
I don't know how to gracefully bow out of the middle of an interview and I wish I did. What I do know is how to sandbag an interview, and I'm sure there are a few people out there who have poor opinions of me that are the direct result of my poor opinion of them.
Places with calm confidence during the interview process may be their own kind of delusional, but they may also be really great places to work, with a good sense of teamwork.
I got asked "what was the last book you read" in a SW startup interview once. I told them and then the interviewers started arguing amongst themselves about whether or not they liked the book, based on what I had told them about it, instead of asking me what I thought about it and what I learned from it. That was one of about thirty red flags. I left without completing the interview.
In imagination-land, it could've been a higher echelon of test.
Despite the dynamic in which you were the one being tag-teamed in an interview, would your catalyst presence bring the interview back on track, with subtle grace?
At the end of a series of "bad interview loop" tests, you learn that they secretly weren't interviewing you to be a coder, and now you are the next chosen-one CEO of Lego.
I had a high school literature teacher that asked me what I thought about the assigned reading, and then told I was wrong. After arguing that the question was not "what did it mean" vs what I thought. I think think whatever the hell I want to think. This was pretty much the death knell of my desire to participate in literature, and freed me up to spend my time in math/sciences. yes, it was just an excuse for something I was going to do anyways, but still a total lack of bedside manner from a teacher can have devastating results.
This has been my experience as well. The more hoops a company made me jump through the less they were offering to begin with, and the culture was not great.
My last gig was great in that aspect. My client found my LinkedIn, we had a quick 15 minute call to discuss the project and I was working for them the next day.
Imagine the tens of thousands of dollars saved if you had a 15 minute (okay 15 is a bit short unless someone vouches for you or you're a well known open source contributor etc, maybe 1 hour or 1.5 hour, hell even 2 hour) technical conversation and the other engineer is like, yeah this person's worth bringing onboard.
Might not work in all cases, but really, if you're trying to sniff out a pretender vs someone who can write software, would not having a heavily technical conversation about details, challenges and other things not make it clearly evident after 15-30-45 minutes if this person is who you need? Rest of the time can be spent napkin designing something or peer programming to check off those to be sure.
I had a interview in 2021 where I had to do a 1.5 hour timed exercise, that apparently isn't sufficient, so their interview pipeline has 3x1hour additional live coding sessions with engineers. Over 4 hours of coding just to prove I can write code up to their standards. Then another 3+ hours of behavioral interviews, meeting the team. Multiply that by the ~5 candidates you interview per position multiplied by each position you hire for in a given year.
> I passed the first interview, but the second was going to be a 5-hour remote codeshare/whiteboard interview with the team. I declined the second interview.
Last year I interviewed for MongoDB. They proudly boasted that their hiring process consisted of a 7 interview marathon. I asked if that wasn't too many interviews, and the interviewer boasted that they already managed to streamline their process down from 12 interviews.
They also proceeded to point out that all FANGs follow the same process, except they really don't.
I respectfully dropped from the hiring process there and then. The extremes to which they take their cargo cult mentality is out of this world.
Ha, I had a phone interview with MDB for a (contract!) technical writing gig, and they told me the next steps include (1) a one-hour critical thinking test, whatever that means, and (2) a one-hour writing interview.
Not a take-home writing assignment, which would be pretty standard, but a live writing interview via Zoom screen share. Very unusual, but I don't have too many other things on the horizon right now, so I'll see where it goes...
Yep - companies will continue to use these bizarre hiring criteria/tests unless or until enough people refuse to participate; but as long as their is a line of people behind you willing to do 'whatever' for the chance at the job, not much will change.
Unfortunately companies have found a loophole: They just say "we couldn't find anyone who is acceptable for the role locally so instead we'll hire overseas for a fraction of the cost, darn"
Almost like the unnecessarily complex hiring processes are built that way on purpose.
Interviews are for weeding out poor candidates; what you have left are the good ones. Weeding out poor candidates is not possible with 10-15 minutes informal chats.
> I ended up choosing the job that had no whiteboard interview or personality test. It was just a simple conversation with the tech lead about my previous experience and if I had the experience to work on their current system
I miss interviews like this. We need to compile a list of companies that still do this. In fact, getting on that list could really help a company's recruiting efforts - which in turn could influence other companies to adopt this interview style.
I think they're gone because, within the limited time of an interview, it's hard to prove competence with chatting, for yourself, and especially in a way that can be communicated to others in the panel. Most places I've worked, firing is a bad bad thing. It means everyone involved with the hire failed, and morale is hurt by everyone that sees the person let go.
When I first started interviewing, this was the method I used. It turns out that most people have fanfic for resumes. "Designed a system" or "worked with a system" actually means "played an insignificant part in the design of a system" or "minimally modified some existing code". Getting to a point where this is obvious can take a significant portion of a 45 minute interview, and almost always comes from digging into the nitty gritty of the details, very close to code. Then, worried, you have them try to write some basic code as time runs out, and they completely flop, with that, and whatever small thing triggered your suspicion, being the only useful evidence you can point to for why you're saying no, even though others are saying yes.
So, I flipped it. I go for real evidence first, which gives me objective, repeatable, results, then any remaining time is left to talk and go into depth. I give them an easy work related problem, requiring realistic syntax. I've had people that were fantastic with communicating their ideas, and even pseudocode, but didn't know the syntax of a function or simple for loop, in the language of their choice. Take home code/screens can't be trusted, without basically goin through it line by line. Heck, video interviews can barely be trusted these days. I've many had people obviously, and not so obviously, copy paste the top google search result. I've even had people double team an interview, with the second person listening and typing the results on a second screen.
That said, I completely agree. My dream interview, either side, is just getting nerdy for an hour and a half with someone. But, especially for less senior roles, I can see why it's not popular, especially if you're stuck with short interviews, or are not the hiring manager, where you don't have to objectively justify things. Interviews are, unfortunately, a fairly adversarial interaction.
> the second was going to be a 5-hour remote codeshare/whiteboard interview with the team
I had a similar experience with Cisco. The recruiter, who seemed pretty inexperienced, said she wouldn't reveal the compensation range until after the 5-hour interview. I declined the 5-hour interview day and that was the last time I even considered a job that didn't post the compensation range up front.
From what I understand, Canonical culture isn't great, either. The whole process sounds a lot like what you are talking about -- just hoops to winnow out people for the sake of winnowing.
After that personality test, they ask you to complete a timed IQ test. After that, you'll reach a behavioral interview after which you get assigned a "take home" technical assessment, which then after submitting you can schedule to have technical interviews (potentially multiple). You can fail at any step along the way.
It was one of the more laughably ridiculous interviewing processes I've seen, and thankfully the only one I've seen recently that was so egregious.
Having seen Canonical's personality test, while it's impossible to verify without their marking methodology, it feels explicitly classist (which in the US probably means it produces racist outcomes too)
Short whiteboard interviews have become LeetCode/take-home assignment/one vs whole-team-from-every-department interview marathons. So instead of those funny pictures, we'll have Rorschach tests followed by polygraphs soon.
Personality tests are stupid but I don't know if I'd be willing to join a company that didn't do any-kind of whiteboarding/live coding exercise.
I've interviewed way too many people who can't write a for loop. Fizzbuzz is supposed to be a joke not something people legitimately fail but it happens all the time.
I'm fine with a coding test, and okay with whiteboarding / live-coding so long as people are accepting of it just being roughing-out the code rather than expecting to produce something polished... but 5 hours of it? That's ridiculious unless you're paying people for the interview.
It's still such a weird contrast where I hear of talented, very experienced engineers who will still be ghosted by 90% of jobs, but then there's also experiences like this.
Like, how is this sub-fizzbuzz programmer getting interviews but someone with 10+ years experience gets trapped in the HR filter?
That was the way that I interviewed. I never gave a coding test in my life.
I never made a technical error, but I think that I did hire a couple of folks, over the years, that didn't integrate into the team that well. Not sure the personality test would have made a difference.
Sometimes, the only way that you can tell how someone will do, is start working with them.
the first time I saw a pressure-interview for high skill coders was on campus at Apple, and the interviewing team was from Microsoft HQ. The project was audio-related and required excellent coding skills and knowledge of digital sound and associated mathematics. This was in the early 1990s IIR.
After complete astonishment at the focus on "performance coding" also known as obey my commands now.. by tech-bros from MSFT, the immediate thought was "this is a new style of engineering management that emphasizes the authority of the interviewer over talent and skill fitting"
> but the second was going to be a 5-hour remote codeshare/whiteboard interview with the team.
I've never understood why large companies do such long gruelling interviews. I always assumed it's because big companies get lots of low quality applicants at high volume but thats just a huge investment for both sides.
From my limited experience hiring you can spot the talented ones pretty quickly and the real test comes a few months down the road when you're working together and you see their output and ability to learn and adapt quickly to the team.
Work background and experience is usually plenty of information. Not sure what some toy tests in a remote call is going to tell you other than their ability to manage nerves and operate under public pressure.
Bad experience with too much undetected nepotism might be a reason they decided to start looking for slightly more objective procedures. When those then still get gamed, perhaps even harder, that turns into a slippery slope and in the end you get those systems where only those who memorize the entire secret dance routine ever get a position.
I basically refuse to work for any company that chooses to employ IQ or personality tests.
I once walked into an interview and they presented me with a wunderlich test (the test they give NFL quarterbacks). It's not technically an IQ test but you can back into IQ ranges using the results.
For the math part I made sure I got the wrong answer on everything then in the in-person interview that happened immediately after I made sure to tell them I was very bad at math (my degree is in CS & Math).
I don't want to work in a place where they think these sorts of tests tell them anything useful.
The Wonderlic test only seems to work for the NFL because people study for it. I had to take it once for a hedge fund - if your mental math is good it's no big deal, but it definitely helps to practice.
Do they really want to be asking this? People's reading habits are highly personal. There are lots of questions you can't legally / shouldn't ask during an interview, and this is pretty borderline.
> The manager interviewing me (who admit he basically just started managing a month prior) told me he just read a 'great book on management' and wanted to 'try this out'.
Each one has a title like "Starter Not a Finisher", "Frequently Change My Mind", "Always Wonder Why", "Easily Offended", "Art Isn't My Thing", "Unstoppable", "Make Friends Everywhere", "Good Enough", "Not My Job", "Tend to Feel Sad", "Volunteering", "Believe the Best of People", "Hard to Start a New Task", "Loves the Social Scene", "Chats in Elevators", "Natural Leader", "Sometimes Thoughtless"
I interviewed at Burger King in college, the manager told me I was the only applicant in their system to get above 80% on the personality test. It was incredibly easy things like, "How many minutes are acceptable to show up late for your shift? 5 minutes, 15 minutes, 30 minutes, being late is unacceptable". Or "If you knew there were no cameras able to see you, and no other employees around, how much money is okay to take from the register? $1, $5, $20, any amount is unacceptable"
He said something along the lines of "I know some employees are going to try to steal from the register, but why would they admit that in an interview?
I really think in the best case, it's someone in charge of adding criteria to hiring decisions and they pick a personality test as a way to measure and fit a candidate into some box they've arbitrarily chosen for a role. In the worst case they're filtering out neurodivergent people but can't say that because it's illegal. They'll make up reasons like you're listing, but there's not much evidence to the efficacy of these test at evaluating those criteria.
Like 20 years ago, a company was taken to the cleaners because they used a test used by psychologists to evaluate mental health as a personality test in hiring. Now, people who make/use these tests are careful to only use them in ways that healthcare professionals don't. A side effect of that is that any test that would be useful for reliably measuring a candidate's personality/mental fitness would also be illegal. So a lot of these tests are bunk to begin with.
I think its insurance against discrimination lawsuits. There is no obligation for the employer to reject an application for failing the test, but if an applicant is rejected, there is a good chance they can use the test as something to point to that gave them doubt.
This is true of job interviews generally. It’s a game to see if you have enough sense to predict and give answer they want (not the unvarnished truth).
Those titles help a lot. I wonder whether the Reddit poster saw titles.
With titles, some people will be dim or troubled enough to give the wrong answer on obvious ones, like "Starter Not a Finisher".
The right answer on other questions are trickier. Like maybe the company wants a handler of packages to be willing to toss the packages around "Good Enough", and some manager thought some people are a natural at that, and asked for a test to tell them. (Like when a non-technical executive was suggesting that I should give coding exams to senior software engineer candidates, and the strongest point in the argument was "This will tell us whether they do unit tests!")
Could titles be tricky, like if "Loves the Social Scene" is paired with image of someone partying hard, so the company might think they'll have hangover absenteeism, OUI, or other risks?
Or risk of insubordination, or disruption to the hierarchy? A self-image of "Natural Leader" in a worker-bee role could be seen as problematic by a simple-minded company.
Maybe Fedex is gathering data on which combinations of answers predict a unionizing troublemaker. Or, in the scenario that a shop floor employee is injured, which employees are going to be murmuring about it with others, speaking with investigator, etc.
If a company wants to be especially evil about it, some of these questions might be good for weeding out candidates with depression. Or for arguing pre-existing condition, if an employee later claims that working conditions caused mental anguish.
Then there's the meta of filtering out people who are alienated by this test, or who are not captive. Especially with the odd images in this test, I think many candidates with self-respect and other options will simply walk away. It's not like Leetcode hazings, where they've been conditioned since school that this is just the ritual you do to get that very-well-paying FAANG job. This is some different thing, to which you're submitting for a chance to work at FedEx.
What other possibilities?
Some of that could be useful to a company, if not very ethically. Also, maybe this was sold to the company as more than it is, based on flawed or fabricated psychological research.
I swear Firefox (iOS, so could be a WebKit thing?) starts tabs scrolled down below the page header recently. Definitely happens on HN now and then (although typically I can't recreate it right now..) pretty sure I've seen it elsewhere too.
I wonder if that is a) actually true browser behaviour and not something the site itself is doing (or something I've managed to make up)
b) if a is true, the reason it hid the kinda-header-looking text representation of the images from OP
Unfortunately I'm at a loss for the keywords to search to confirm this behaviour, I'm only able to find unrelated scroll/header results
I get an ASMR-like response from taking tests/quizzes, even these sorta pop-psych nonsense ones.
Apparently I'm a "mentor" at FedEx. It resonates. :)
My current client had me sit one of these after 2 years on the job. That one labeled me "Debater". I argued with them out of principle. I think that if their HR people used it to screen me before I started, I would not have gotten the gig at all. :D
The test is pretty easy to game just by giving answers you think make you a good prospect - traits you would aspire to but don't necessarily achieve. I too got a Mentor rating whereas in reality I am retired and much closer to a lazy shy procrastinating individual contributor who never gets anything done!
Seems like a fairly standard personality test. I just ran through it and got the same kind of answer I usually get on these tests.
I don't really see the value in these tests but, apart from the weird avatars, this one seems to be just Myers-Briggs with different words (for me, "thinker" instead of "INTP").
It seems fine until you find out that most companies then weed out certain personality types, particulary INTJ. Some companies in retail are even looking for only a few personality types that they think will make these employees easy to manage.
I thought this was ridiculous as an interview screening process. However, since you shared the test, I took it and I’m not sure it’s too unreasonable. I felt like it’s determination of me as a mentor was quite accurate.
Giving a personality test in a competitive context where it's expected that some traits are valued more than others makes the results void. It's a good example of goodhart's law.
Why would you let a potential employer know you're neurotic or disagreeable?
I know which answers they want but more then half of those are not me. How should I answer?
I'm surprised they don't have tests with "Prone to stabbing people" or "Likes doing work".
When I was first getting into tech, I interviewed at FedEx. The first interview went really well, but I totally bombed the second interview--some remote coding challenge.
After my poor performance, I didn't really pursue the position further because I knew I hadn't done well. You win some, you lose some.
8 months later I received an email with an offer letter.
> 8 months later I received an email with an offer letter.
This has happened to me at other companies too, and it boggles my mind. In sending out offers so late, you are literally filtering for people who either:
1. Weren't able to get a different job in 8 months
2. Will job hop in under 8 months.
Granted one of the two times this happened to me, the offer was for a $30k one year contract, so they were kind of scraping the bottom of the barrel anyways there.
"Well, I went to school with [interviewer, one of], and damn can you believe the amount of paste he ate? And he loved eating and flinging boogers. And there was this time when he got..... lice!"
Just start making shit up cause there's no fucking way you're going to be there.
I had one company spring this health screener on my with zero warning, which included such questions as whether I had ever been pregnant or made anyone pregnant, and whether I had ever been depressed and how so. Very weird stuff, so I challenged it and HR responded that it was a required test for health and safety at work.
It wasn't, it was some corporate type doing massive overreach into areas where they had no right to even ask.
I'm pretty sure the pregnant question is illegal in the US. It's an obvious discriminatory question. If we had a regulatory body worth a shit, they would get punished for it.
I've had the same thing happen. I challenged it on principle - why does a dev need a medical? But went to the centre anyway because I wanted the job. Once I saw the questionnaire and the consent to disclose form, I nope'd out. It wasn't a Dr evaluating me and saying 'fit' or 'unfit' for duty, it was a massive list of very invasive questions including questions about my parents' health, subtle pregnant or not questions, etc. Best of all, it was all forwarded to the company. Said no thanks and moved on.
That sounds pretty bad as you present it. I have seen a state uni do a similar sounding kind of employee survey -- the point of which was not to violate individual privacy but to produce an aggregated survey to present to health insurance companies bidding on providing employees that benefit. I imagine there's a pretty huge incumbent bias there; the current provider has exact data on claims and they aren't sharing with the competition. And especially in the insurance industry, there's a concern about adverse selection and asymmetric information that I imagine could be cured or at least reduced with additional data.
Long ago, when searching for my first swe job, I was invited to this group interview things, when they put us all in a room and asked us to complete tasks like building a spaceship out of LEGOs.
After the first task, we were asked "what do you think about the task?". I raised my hand: "it's humiliating", and left the room.
I didn't had any other offer at that time, and got a call from them a day later, telling me they'd like to talk with me. Replied that I don't think it'd be a good match.
I later learned that role was for the infamous "binary options", a gray market betting website.
Good on you for standing up to this bullshit in your first career job. I'm not sure I would've known better, and I sure wouldn't have had the guts to speak out about it
It's legal for companies to make hiring decisions based on the results of personality tests. It's legal for them to make other personal decisions, such as promoting, firing, giving raises etc. It's legal to make these kinds of decisions based on personality tests that have poor scientific evidence in their efficiency. It's legal to ignore the tests and not make decisions based on them. Largely companies use this as a cover-your-ass tactic. The employer is buying ammunition for future legal fights over employment.
There's really only one set of personality traits (The Big 5) that has a strong scientific backing. Of those only being high in conscientiousness is a signal for being a good employee. Employers screen for that all the time via proxy, such as having a college degree. They don't need to test for it directly. There are however many not-big-5 popular personality tests that are sold to companies. I don't want to call out any specific one, but you should be highly skeptical of their validity.
At best these tests are management by covering your ass. At worst these tests are actively filtering against populations that it is illegal to filter for. For example, the IQ test was once given as part of the immigration process for the United States. Considering that the tests were administered in English they were mostly used as legal justification to turn away non-English speakers.
Ok so you’re partly right and partly wrong. In California it’s flat-out illegal (Tit. 2, § 11071) and attempts to perform more diluted assessments have been found to infringe upon California’s right to privacy.
As for other states, the ADA is likely the biggest threat to these practices and it’s not hard to imagine that a lawsuit will eventually find aspects of many of the current practices to already be illegal. But you’re right that for the “average” person there are generally no protections.
> the IQ test was once given as part of the immigration process for the United States.
This is a myth. There were some attempts at IQ testing in the 1920s but they failed due to language barriers. What was adopted was a trivial wooden puzzle to screen for severe cognitive impairment. That said, the purpose of this test was eugenicist, aligning with the politics of its day.
Glad to see feedback from real users. My company was pitched by Paradox [1] to use their chatbot and this bizarre questionnaire to hire SW.
Their solution target mostly McDonalds workers and other bluecollar, where I believe it's "okeish to put human beings thru the mud first".
They claim [2] there is science behind it, but me and my partner's feedback was it will never work for IT workers.
Selecting people with low self-worth that can be easily broken. You don't want a free thinker with vocal opinions and entitlement (warranted or not) working at your McDonalds - you want a drone that is just good enough to do the job.
Hiring process often is a reflection of work culture. Shitty process will remove candidates that won't fit the culture.
Readit News
The manager interviewing me (who admit he basically just started managing a month prior) told me he just read a 'great book on management' and wanted to 'try this out'. I passed the first interview, but the second was going to be a 5-hour remote codeshare/whiteboard interview with the team. I declined the second interview.
I ended up choosing the job that had no whiteboard interview or personality test. It was just a simple conversation with the tech lead about my previous experience and if I had the experience to work on their current system.
It was the best job I ever had and they are still my client almost 5 years later.
I chose the startup, and it has been the best job decision I've ever made.
Personality tests can disclose a lot of personal information. It's unclear where this data might end up or who might have access to it. I detest this practice and consider it a major red flag.
(edit: typos)
I always remember the words of my Professor: "Don't you know that everything where you have to invest a lot (I assume effort, time, money, energy) nothing ever comes out?
So if your IT job requires a letter of recommendation from the pope and even if you are able to get the letter, you are unlikely to get the job. :-)
In my experience the only thing personality tests disclose is how good the testee is at guessing which answers will be viewed most favorably
Only if you want it to. Answer in a way that suits your purpose.
Then it becomes a question not of whether you're 'worthy' of a job with these people, but whether you really want to walk into a place that is telegraphing this much paranoia.
I don't know how to gracefully bow out of the middle of an interview and I wish I did. What I do know is how to sandbag an interview, and I'm sure there are a few people out there who have poor opinions of me that are the direct result of my poor opinion of them.
Places with calm confidence during the interview process may be their own kind of delusional, but they may also be really great places to work, with a good sense of teamwork.
Despite the dynamic in which you were the one being tag-teamed in an interview, would your catalyst presence bring the interview back on track, with subtle grace?
At the end of a series of "bad interview loop" tests, you learn that they secretly weren't interviewing you to be a coder, and now you are the next chosen-one CEO of Lego.
It sounds like an extremely effective question;)
My last gig was great in that aspect. My client found my LinkedIn, we had a quick 15 minute call to discuss the project and I was working for them the next day.
Might not work in all cases, but really, if you're trying to sniff out a pretender vs someone who can write software, would not having a heavily technical conversation about details, challenges and other things not make it clearly evident after 15-30-45 minutes if this person is who you need? Rest of the time can be spent napkin designing something or peer programming to check off those to be sure.
I had a interview in 2021 where I had to do a 1.5 hour timed exercise, that apparently isn't sufficient, so their interview pipeline has 3x1hour additional live coding sessions with engineers. Over 4 hours of coding just to prove I can write code up to their standards. Then another 3+ hours of behavioral interviews, meeting the team. Multiply that by the ~5 candidates you interview per position multiplied by each position you hire for in a given year.
Last year I interviewed for MongoDB. They proudly boasted that their hiring process consisted of a 7 interview marathon. I asked if that wasn't too many interviews, and the interviewer boasted that they already managed to streamline their process down from 12 interviews.
They also proceeded to point out that all FANGs follow the same process, except they really don't.
I respectfully dropped from the hiring process there and then. The extremes to which they take their cargo cult mentality is out of this world.
Nah, just "webscale" like everything else Mongo.
Not a take-home writing assignment, which would be pretty standard, but a live writing interview via Zoom screen share. Very unusual, but I don't have too many other things on the horizon right now, so I'll see where it goes...
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/16833100/why-does-the-mo...
Almost like the unnecessarily complex hiring processes are built that way on purpose.
I don't really see the value in going through hiring gauntlets and opt out of any process that looks like it might waste time like that.
I miss interviews like this. We need to compile a list of companies that still do this. In fact, getting on that list could really help a company's recruiting efforts - which in turn could influence other companies to adopt this interview style.
When I first started interviewing, this was the method I used. It turns out that most people have fanfic for resumes. "Designed a system" or "worked with a system" actually means "played an insignificant part in the design of a system" or "minimally modified some existing code". Getting to a point where this is obvious can take a significant portion of a 45 minute interview, and almost always comes from digging into the nitty gritty of the details, very close to code. Then, worried, you have them try to write some basic code as time runs out, and they completely flop, with that, and whatever small thing triggered your suspicion, being the only useful evidence you can point to for why you're saying no, even though others are saying yes.
So, I flipped it. I go for real evidence first, which gives me objective, repeatable, results, then any remaining time is left to talk and go into depth. I give them an easy work related problem, requiring realistic syntax. I've had people that were fantastic with communicating their ideas, and even pseudocode, but didn't know the syntax of a function or simple for loop, in the language of their choice. Take home code/screens can't be trusted, without basically goin through it line by line. Heck, video interviews can barely be trusted these days. I've many had people obviously, and not so obviously, copy paste the top google search result. I've even had people double team an interview, with the second person listening and typing the results on a second screen.
That said, I completely agree. My dream interview, either side, is just getting nerdy for an hour and a half with someone. But, especially for less senior roles, I can see why it's not popular, especially if you're stuck with short interviews, or are not the hiring manager, where you don't have to objectively justify things. Interviews are, unfortunately, a fairly adversarial interaction.
I had a similar experience with Cisco. The recruiter, who seemed pretty inexperienced, said she wouldn't reveal the compensation range until after the 5-hour interview. I declined the 5-hour interview day and that was the last time I even considered a job that didn't post the compensation range up front.
From what I understand, Canonical culture isn't great, either. The whole process sounds a lot like what you are talking about -- just hoops to winnow out people for the sake of winnowing.
It was one of the more laughably ridiculous interviewing processes I've seen, and thankfully the only one I've seen recently that was so egregious.
Dead Comment
I have created a bug fix for the issue they had. I saw the developer has committed my code into their repo.
Then there was a white board session when I had to present my take on the problem they have described and outline possible ways of resolving it.
I saw few team members had lightbulb moments.
In the end the whole exercise took whole day. I didn't get the job.
I've been thinking if I should have sent them an invoice for that day...
I've interviewed way too many people who can't write a for loop. Fizzbuzz is supposed to be a joke not something people legitimately fail but it happens all the time.
Like, how is this sub-fizzbuzz programmer getting interviews but someone with 10+ years experience gets trapped in the HR filter?
Dead Comment
I never made a technical error, but I think that I did hire a couple of folks, over the years, that didn't integrate into the team that well. Not sure the personality test would have made a difference.
Sometimes, the only way that you can tell how someone will do, is start working with them.
After complete astonishment at the focus on "performance coding" also known as obey my commands now.. by tech-bros from MSFT, the immediate thought was "this is a new style of engineering management that emphasizes the authority of the interviewer over talent and skill fitting"
I've never understood why large companies do such long gruelling interviews. I always assumed it's because big companies get lots of low quality applicants at high volume but thats just a huge investment for both sides.
From my limited experience hiring you can spot the talented ones pretty quickly and the real test comes a few months down the road when you're working together and you see their output and ability to learn and adapt quickly to the team.
Work background and experience is usually plenty of information. Not sure what some toy tests in a remote call is going to tell you other than their ability to manage nerves and operate under public pressure.
I once walked into an interview and they presented me with a wunderlich test (the test they give NFL quarterbacks). It's not technically an IQ test but you can back into IQ ranges using the results.
For the math part I made sure I got the wrong answer on everything then in the in-person interview that happened immediately after I made sure to tell them I was very bad at math (my degree is in CS & Math).
I don't want to work in a place where they think these sorts of tests tell them anything useful.
Do they really want to be asking this? People's reading habits are highly personal. There are lots of questions you can't legally / shouldn't ask during an interview, and this is pretty borderline.
Did he happen to have pointy hair?
"How To Become the CEO of the Company You Work For"
Each one has a title like "Starter Not a Finisher", "Frequently Change My Mind", "Always Wonder Why", "Easily Offended", "Art Isn't My Thing", "Unstoppable", "Make Friends Everywhere", "Good Enough", "Not My Job", "Tend to Feel Sad", "Volunteering", "Believe the Best of People", "Hard to Start a New Task", "Loves the Social Scene", "Chats in Elevators", "Natural Leader", "Sometimes Thoughtless"
1) bright enough to answer to achieve just about any desired outcome (usually not a high bar),
2) socially/politically aware enough to realize which outcomes will be good, and which will be bad; and,
3) agreeable/compliant enough to go ahead and game the quiz to achieve a good outcome without raising a fuss.
He said something along the lines of "I know some employees are going to try to steal from the register, but why would they admit that in an interview?
Like 20 years ago, a company was taken to the cleaners because they used a test used by psychologists to evaluate mental health as a personality test in hiring. Now, people who make/use these tests are careful to only use them in ways that healthcare professionals don't. A side effect of that is that any test that would be useful for reliably measuring a candidate's personality/mental fitness would also be illegal. So a lot of these tests are bunk to begin with.
Which is an awful combination to select for, imo
With titles, some people will be dim or troubled enough to give the wrong answer on obvious ones, like "Starter Not a Finisher".
The right answer on other questions are trickier. Like maybe the company wants a handler of packages to be willing to toss the packages around "Good Enough", and some manager thought some people are a natural at that, and asked for a test to tell them. (Like when a non-technical executive was suggesting that I should give coding exams to senior software engineer candidates, and the strongest point in the argument was "This will tell us whether they do unit tests!")
Could titles be tricky, like if "Loves the Social Scene" is paired with image of someone partying hard, so the company might think they'll have hangover absenteeism, OUI, or other risks?
Or risk of insubordination, or disruption to the hierarchy? A self-image of "Natural Leader" in a worker-bee role could be seen as problematic by a simple-minded company.
Maybe Fedex is gathering data on which combinations of answers predict a unionizing troublemaker. Or, in the scenario that a shop floor employee is injured, which employees are going to be murmuring about it with others, speaking with investigator, etc.
If a company wants to be especially evil about it, some of these questions might be good for weeding out candidates with depression. Or for arguing pre-existing condition, if an employee later claims that working conditions caused mental anguish.
Then there's the meta of filtering out people who are alienated by this test, or who are not captive. Especially with the odd images in this test, I think many candidates with self-respect and other options will simply walk away. It's not like Leetcode hazings, where they've been conditioned since school that this is just the ritual you do to get that very-well-paying FAANG job. This is some different thing, to which you're submitting for a chance to work at FedEx.
What other possibilities?
Some of that could be useful to a company, if not very ethically. Also, maybe this was sold to the company as more than it is, based on flawed or fabricated psychological research.
I wonder if that is a) actually true browser behaviour and not something the site itself is doing (or something I've managed to make up)
b) if a is true, the reason it hid the kinda-header-looking text representation of the images from OP
Unfortunately I'm at a loss for the keywords to search to confirm this behaviour, I'm only able to find unrelated scroll/header results
Apparently I'm a "mentor" at FedEx. It resonates. :)
My current client had me sit one of these after 2 years on the job. That one labeled me "Debater". I argued with them out of principle. I think that if their HR people used it to screen me before I started, I would not have gotten the gig at all. :D
The OP of the Reddit thread didn't see the titles, and was instructed to "look at the images and go with your gut".
For the record, I don't have blue skin and hair, so I'd be inclined to answer "not me" for all of them.
Two Drinks - Frequently Change My Mind
Laptop Screen - "Hard to Start a New Task"
Painting - Easily Offended
Couch Happy/Sad - "Tend to Feel Sad"
Sculpture Yawn - Art Isnt My Thing
Four Stars - "Good Enough"
Puzzle - Starter Not a Finisher
Flower - Unstoppable
Clock - "Always Wonder Why"
Gift - "Make Friends Everywhere"
Superhero - Natural Leader
Talking during Party - Chats in Elevators
Tweezers - "attention to detail" type of thing
Couch Laundry Basket - "Not My Job"
Hands in the Air - "Loves the Social Scene"
Pizza Glutton - Sometimes Thoughtless
Hike/Cook/Skydive - ... probably "adventurous" or fearless or like that
Fruit vs Donut - "Volunteering"
Close park - "Believe the Best of People
Management and HR claims to want those, until they actually get one
I don't really see the value in these tests but, apart from the weird avatars, this one seems to be just Myers-Briggs with different words (for me, "thinker" instead of "INTP").
on the other hand, there could be a reverse personality test for the company
"Sociopath", "Perfectionist", "All about me", "Unrealistic Expectations", "Rude to the waiter", "Excessive Bureaucracy", "Easily Offends"...
When I was first getting into tech, I interviewed at FedEx. The first interview went really well, but I totally bombed the second interview--some remote coding challenge.
After my poor performance, I didn't really pursue the position further because I knew I hadn't done well. You win some, you lose some.
8 months later I received an email with an offer letter.
This has happened to me at other companies too, and it boggles my mind. In sending out offers so late, you are literally filtering for people who either:
1. Weren't able to get a different job in 8 months
2. Will job hop in under 8 months.
Granted one of the two times this happened to me, the offer was for a $30k one year contract, so they were kind of scraping the bottom of the barrel anyways there.
For a senior SWE role. Even the body shop recruiter was agast.
Besides, jokes on them, childhood is repressed from trauma.
Just start making shit up cause there's no fucking way you're going to be there.
It wasn't, it was some corporate type doing massive overreach into areas where they had no right to even ask.
I would be tempted to look for a wedding ring, and answer with "your mother/wife one time, you should ask her about it" accordingly.
I probably wouldn't take the job anyway.
But it might affect health insurance claims, and I'm guessing cheaper underwriting is the reason HR went along with it.
After the first task, we were asked "what do you think about the task?". I raised my hand: "it's humiliating", and left the room.
I didn't had any other offer at that time, and got a call from them a day later, telling me they'd like to talk with me. Replied that I don't think it'd be a good match.
I later learned that role was for the infamous "binary options", a gray market betting website.
There's really only one set of personality traits (The Big 5) that has a strong scientific backing. Of those only being high in conscientiousness is a signal for being a good employee. Employers screen for that all the time via proxy, such as having a college degree. They don't need to test for it directly. There are however many not-big-5 popular personality tests that are sold to companies. I don't want to call out any specific one, but you should be highly skeptical of their validity.
At best these tests are management by covering your ass. At worst these tests are actively filtering against populations that it is illegal to filter for. For example, the IQ test was once given as part of the immigration process for the United States. Considering that the tests were administered in English they were mostly used as legal justification to turn away non-English speakers.
As for other states, the ADA is likely the biggest threat to these practices and it’s not hard to imagine that a lawsuit will eventually find aspects of many of the current practices to already be illegal. But you’re right that for the “average” person there are generally no protections.
> the IQ test was once given as part of the immigration process for the United States.
This is a myth. There were some attempts at IQ testing in the 1920s but they failed due to language barriers. What was adopted was a trivial wooden puzzle to screen for severe cognitive impairment. That said, the purpose of this test was eugenicist, aligning with the politics of its day.
Just sayin)
[1] - https://www.traitify.com/ [2] - https://www.traitify.com/science
Hiring process often is a reflection of work culture. Shitty process will remove candidates that won't fit the culture.
1. what is the value of these coins
2. is it ok to steal
If you can't count money or think it is ok to steal then you cannot work in retail.