
The one interview question I always ask - ibagrak
http://codercofounder.wordpress.com/2012/03/19/the-one-interview-question-i-always-ask/
======
edw519
_The question is simple: Imagine if you are extended multiple job offers from
different companies, and you are trying to decide which one you will accept.
Imagine that they way you go about this is that you write down the things that
matter to you from most to least and that you use 3-5 things at the top of
that list to decide. Those are your decision drivers. What are they?_

My response is simple: Imagine if you have multiple candidates for the same
job, and you are trying to decide which one you will hire. Imagine that the
way you go about this is that you write down the things that matter to you
from most to least and that you use 3-5 things at the top of that list to
decide. Those are your decision drivers. What are they?

[ASIDE: I really don't mean to be disrespectful to OP; this may be one of the
better interview hacks I've seen. But that's just the point: it is a hack.
Hack ones and zeros and earn our respect. But hack us and earn our contempt.]

~~~
DevX101
I'd be fine if a candidate asked me this question as employer at the end of
the interview. I'd answer honestly.

But if this was your stock response -- to immediately mirror question, it'd be
a big turn off and tell me that you're gonna be a pain in the ass to work
with.

~~~
theoj
Might want to refer to this:

>> Hack ones and zeros and earn our respect. But hack us and earn our
contempt.

By you asking the question you have already earned the interviewee's contempt
- now it is only a matter of how that is expressed. Some people express it
openly, others are more diplomatic. The result is the same though -- a person
who is not going to take your offer.

Bottom line: the question is manipulative, and everyone with a bit of self-
awareness will figure that out. Nobody wants to work for a manipulative
person.

~~~
polshaw
I don't see it as manipulative. I'm not a massive fan of the phrasing, but the
question is just a differently-dressed version of 'what are your priorities'.

If you get worked up about that, then it would be a definite black mark
against employing you. If you would refuse a job offer because of it, I would
say it was a bullet dodged.

~~~
Daniel_Newby
My top priority is to not have someone gaming my other priorities.

------
azov
_> Be sure to lean on the word “imagine”, as you’ll get more sincere answers
as a result. I think imagining things just liberates the candidate from the
scripted answers_

Of course smart people you want to hire will never recognize this clever
mental trick.

 _> it explores a candidate’s motivation and value system._

Wrong. It explores candidate's ability to guess the answers you want to hear.
And you have no way to tell whether candidate is sincere or just trying to
please you.

Come on, this is a typical BS question, along the lines of "tell me your
weaknesses" etc...

~~~
hackinthebochs
I'm inclined to agree. You should never _ever_ ask a question where you can't
tell the difference between an honest answer and a good BS answer (and no, you
don't have some superhuman power to tell if someone is BSing you). You'll
likely just end up with more charlatans than legitimate candidates.

The fact is, anyone who's spent any amount of time on proggit/HN knows the
correct answers here: work environment, smart people, interesting projects,
cool technology, making a difference, etc. What you really want to ask is "how
do you keep up with technology" and see if they say HN.

~~~
eli_gottlieb
>What you really want to ask is "how do you keep up with technology" and see
if they say HN.

I actually disagree. HN is about 1/3 new technology but 2/3 business news.

~~~
grannyg00se
Well in that case inquiring minds would like to know: How do YOU keep up with
technology?

~~~
leif
I don't. Then again, I write systems C, so I don't really need to keep up with
technology much. If anything, I keep up by reading the emails intel sends me.

This is very domain-specific.

------
ctide
I'm not sure why people are so offended by this question. While I've never
asked this question as the interviewer, I've been asked similar questions
whilst interviewing and felt they always lead down a path that was helpful to
both sides.

If the things I care about in a job don't jive with the things your company
cares about, why would I even want an offer from you? In my specific case,
when interviewing in the past, things I've cared strongly about are things
like test-driven development, a culture that values code quality as well as
shipping products, and having a meaningful stake in the success of the
company. If you aren't going to provide these things, or they don't matter to
you, I sure as fuck don't want to work for you. If people are strictly upset
about the word 'imagine', then that's one thing. Thinking this question is
'overly revealing' or something seems bizarre to me. Don't you want to work
somewhere where the things you care about are valued?

~~~
moonchrome
>I'm not sure why people are so offended by this question.

Here's why :

>In my specific case, when interviewing in the past, things I've cared
strongly about are things like test-driven development, a culture that values
code quality as well as shipping products, and having a meaningful stake in
the success of the company.

Platitudes like "a culture that values code quality as well as shipping
products" and "meaningful stake" are useless, unless you're expecting the
interviewer to say that his company values low quality code and not shipping
products and that you're going to be a low paid code grunt down in the salt
mines. As for testing, even if they don't use it nothing prevents them from
lying - and if you think lying about it is stupid - not using testing is also
stupid - so it's likely a pattern in decision making. It works the other way
as well, it's really easy to fake what the interviewer wants to hear with this
sort of generic questions that don't touch on the things that actually matter
to the job (and I would say that the only reason to resort to these kind of
questions is because you can't ask insightful technical questions, ie. talking
about a previous project and the persons involvement/duties will allow you to
collect actual information about the person, but you need to be able to
understand what he was doing to evaluate it).

Questions and evaluations like these are things that HR people sell to
management to make themselves appear useful without actually having skill to
meaningfully evaluate the candidate, "corporate culture", "team player",
"company values", etc. are all vague buzzwords with no quantifiable metrics
behind them, but they are simple to pound on with simplistic intuition and
anecdotal evidence. Even if the supposed attributes were somehow meaningful
from my experience companies that focus on that sort of talk when interviewing
end up with exactly the kind of people you would want to avoid - bullshiters
with nothing to back their talk, that usually end up hijacking some part of
the system by introducing random bullshit that only they can wade trough - to
ensure job security. So even if the metrics are right the interviewers suck at
measuring them. When I hear questions like these it's usually a red flag.

~~~
jasonlotito
> Generic platitudes like "a culture that values code quality as well as
> shipping products" and "meaningful stake" are useless

This makes the assumption that you just stop there and cannot ask follow up.
Follow up questions that can garner a more clear answer on how code quality
and shipping happens in a practical sense:

* How do you ensure code quality? * Do you perform code reviews? What's the procedure there? * What's code rollup like? * How often do you deploy? * Can I watch a deployment? * What SCM do you use? * Do you use any CR tools like gerrit or Crucible? * What's the process for a product from inception to launch?

These are just a few questions you can use to determine help you find out if
the company values code quality and shipping products.

People often forget that an interview isn't one way. Just as it's important
for the company to be prepared with questions for an interview, it's equally
important for the interviewee to be prepared as well. However, this is often
the case. People are so focused on providing good answers to questions, they
forget to prepare good questions themselves. Often times good questions can
help provide answers to questions not yet asked, and make the entire affair
much more enjoyable.

~~~
moonchrome
>This makes the assumption that you just stop there and cannot ask follow up.

And your followup assumes that you're talking to a programmer and not a
recruiter. I guess it depends on where you're interviewing but I've had more
than one interview with HR/management only (needless to say that even tough it
was the "first round" I didn't stick around). Anyway I would just ask them
what for a technical description of my role in the company, things like SCM
and CR assume that I know what tools are good/bad, it's perfectly possible
that they are using something that I think is bad but makes sense for them, so
I guess it goes both ways, I expect the interviewer to be competent, and I
trust my instinct on evaluating that, and then just do the trial period.

Also if you're going to ask the details, then skip the platitude entirely and
focus on what you're interested, unless you consider them courteous prelude to
detailed questions.

~~~
jasonlotito
> And your followup assumes that you're talking to a programmer and not a
> recruiter?

Assume? I'd know if I was talking to a programmer rather than a recruiter.
Doesn't change what questions I would ask or expect answers to.

Let me ask you this: do you feel it's important that someone in HR be able to
answer your technical questions? Do you feel you should be able to ask
whatever programmer you interview with about compensation and moving expenses?
Interviewing isn't just a one and done thing.

> I guess it depends on where you're interviewing but I've had more than one
> interview with HR/management only

And?

Still doesn't change anything I said.

> it's perfectly possible that they are using something that I think is bad
> but makes sense for them,

That's why you ask: so you can discuss this.

I don't understand: it seems like you talk about these things, but are
disagreeing with me... just to disagree?

Whatever point your trying to make, you aren't making it.

> unless you consider them courteous prelude to detailed questions.

I felt that was obvious from the OP's comment. It's not uncommon. In fact,
it's quite common.

Coming out and saying "What CSM do you use?" gives no real background no what
you really want to know.

However, saying that "code quality is important to me. So, I'm curious about
your methods of CR and SC? Also, I'd be interested in discussing your
deployment methods."

And, frankly, that's what I got from the OP. Certain things were important to
him. He merely didn't bother with the details, because, let's be honest,
what's the point (the point is, as we both know, to avoid having people pick
over that one meaningless word he used or missed).

Which leads me back to this:

> And your followup assumes that you're talking to a programmer and not a
> recruiter.

Yes. I thought that was obvious given the context.

~~~
moonchrome
>Do you feel you should be able to ask whatever programmer you interview with
about compensation and moving expenses?

I feel like those things can be handled after the initial interview - when we
establish that I'm a suitable candidate and they are actually worth working
for. I feel that the programmer/CTO/who ever is qualified to make a technical
evaluation should be the one to approve the hire and HR can do the negotiation
afterward.

I think we're disagreeing about the context tough. I was quoting his statement
because he used it as a example of the argument the article made from
employees perspective - and my criticism is mostly about the
article/recruiters using shallow questions that provide no information and
focusing on trivial things and corporate speak on "company culture", "team
skills", "decision drivers" and similar vague pseudo sociology/psychology and
other buzzwords that allow you to pretend like you're doing something useful
when you actually aren't qualified to evaluate/manage.

~~~
jasonlotito
> I feel like those things can be handled after the initial interview - when
> we establish that I'm a suitable candidate and they are actually worth
> working for.

Then, that really negates most of what you were saying with regards to who is
being asked. With that being the case, what was the point?

> I think we're disagreeing about the context tough.

Judging by what you just said, I'd say that you're having a difficult time
with the context, and should reread what was written without bias this time.

------
run4yourlives
The "drivers" change depending on the situation and as such this question is
impossible to answer. They themselves are subject to the hierarchy of needs so
to speak.

For example, if money is my number one driver, yet all positions satisfy that
driver by offering more than I want, it ceases to become my main driver, and I
move down the list.

It's possible - in fact likely - that I receive one or more offers that
fulfill all my drivers. At that point, I'm not making the decision based on
these items, but might instead create a new driver - say, the chance to work
on a space startup over a social media one - and use that to choose between
the offers.

The answers you receive for this question aren't telling you the things they
think you are telling you.

In addition to that, _imagining_ anything is going to give you what the
candidate _thinks_ they are like, not what they are actually like. If you
stick to assessing actions that they have actually done, you'll get a better
idea of what they will do in the future, rather than what they think they will
do. My experience has told me that - sadly - few people know themselves well
at all.

~~~
georgemcbay
Agreed. I couldn't answer this question without the answer being a very
complicated and branching flowchart.

If I were choosing between a job that paid $120k and one that paid $110k, the
money wouldn't even factor into it, but if I were choosing between a job that
paid $110k and $250k, then the money would certainly factor into it. Which
isn't to say that I'd automatically choose the $250k job, but that the $110k
job would have to score MUCH better on other factors.

The criteria I'd use in evaluating which job to take is way too fluid to be
boiled down to a list of 3-5 things.

------
henryclay
This kind of interview question really pisses me off. It's basically an
attempt at amateur psychologizing in the interview process, and since the
questioner is generally completely unqualified to seriously analyze the
answer, the reaction generally has nothing to do with "corporate culture" but
everything to do with the prejudices and preferences of the interviewer.
Sometimes those prejudices are trivial ("oh, he cares about external noise and
so do I") but often they are windows through which more serious cultural and
gender prejudices sneak in.

I mean, so if the interviewee says that healthcare is incredibly important
because they have a sick child, that doesn't tell you anything at all about
how well they'll do at the job (but hiring managers often have strong feelings
one way or another about the importance of family). And so what if you manage
to trick them into saying they felt unappreciated at their last job: you have
no idea what the last job was really like, what information could you possibly
gain?

It's true that questions like this can be very revealing. They seldom review
anything relevant about the interviewee, but they do reveal that the hiring
manager is an incompetent jerk.

~~~
gaius
Immediate alarm bells ringing. As an interviewer, you do _not_ want to know
that. Whenever a candidate would mention something that revealed a lifestyle
choice or other circumstance that was or might be covered by discrimination
legislation, I'd have to painstakingly fill out the HR forms so if I rejected
them, all our bases were covered. Otherwise it was a simple one liner, like
"weak X skills".

------
mahrain
I really hate this kind of questions. It will make any candidate feel like
they're being tricked, and any "wrong answer" (look at the list there of
"externalities") will surely be confronted with plenty more follow-up
questions. I don't see how this would select the right person for a job. You
want to know if they fit in (company culture, your "externalities") and you
want to know if they'll be capable of doing the job, that's all. Why should
one be required to bare their soul, check any privacy at the door and jump
through hoops for a job?

~~~
stretchwithme
I'd reply:

Since I have to assess this opportunity using the process you seek to
understand, I'd prefer to keep that to myself.

~~~
SeanOC
That's your discretion but for the sake of argument, what's the value in
keeping that information private?

If both the candidate and the employer are honest in communicating their
priorities in regard to what they hope to get out of the relationship it
allows both parties to better understand each other. Additionally, assuming
they are sufficiently aligned, such discussion allows both parties to focus on
things that matter to everybody involved and not waste time quibbling over
things nobody cares about.

~~~
azov
Try a simpler example to understand the value. Imagine employer asks you in
the interview "what's the minimum salary you are willing to accept for this
position? Come on, just be honest - tell me what you want to make"

PS. In a perfect world every job posting would state compensation, all perks,
and an honest and detailed description of work environment. And every
interview would consist of just one simple question: "are you qualified to do
the job?". Unfortunately, the world we live in is a bit more complicated.

~~~
stretchwithme
Yeah, give me all the information I need to take all of the advantage.

------
eli_gottlieb
The best interview question I ever got asked was, "What's your favorite
algorithm?" I was completely and utterly taken aback: I'd never been asked
such a thing before, and had no answer whatsoever.

So I reached back into my past hobby work, and pulled out "lottery
scheduling". A 30-40 minute conversation on the description, performance,
trade-offs, implementation trade-offs, features and misfeatures of lottery
scheduling ensued.

This worked more brilliantly as a way to interview than anything else I'd ever
been through, because it gave _me_ and _my experience_ a place to shine. Most
interviews really don't. They are idiot-test after idiot-test, designed to
wash out bad hackers, but in the process producing a crop of Most Assuredly
Not Idiots who may not actually be _good_ , while accidentally washing out
some really _good_ hackers who, for example (first-hand experience), wrote a
recursive function instead of a while-loop and a Stack<T>.

If you want good, give good a chance to shine. If you want not-bad, keep
stacking on the idiot tests.

~~~
mturmon
I've asked, "what's your favorite part of math?" for the same reason.
Something open-ended, but allowing the person being interviewed to be on their
home turf. Seems more fair than only focusing on a topic _I_ happen to know
backwards and forwards, but that they, through happenstance, might not.

This can get at a part of creativity that's independent from questions about,
say, the last project someone worked on.

One drawback with that phrasing, which _is_ the one I've used, is that
"favorite" can cause lockup, because choosing that one thing can be hard in
real-time.

------
barrkel
I would expect that the answers to this question are highly susceptible to the
availability heuristic, and would change massively based on priming. Talk
about office environment for 30 seconds, then ask this question; talk about
motivation for 30 seconds, then ask this question; for the same person, I'd be
willing to bet you'd get _completely_ different answers, the first on your
"external" things, the second on your "internal" things.

So I don't think it is as useful for placing someone within a coordinate
system as you think. It's too easily led astray, and won't have a lot of
consistency over time. Your interpretation of the answer will have much of the
qualities of a Rorschach test - but on yourself, not the candidate. You can
read into it whatever you like.

I'd find it somewhat offensive for a simple reason: because it presumes to
psychoanalyze me, to try and figure out what makes me tick. Being a person
with an ego, I like to think I'm slightly more subtle than that. So the
thought of this question coming up in an interview makes me curl my lip in
contempt. I doubt I'd consider an offer from someone who tried this technique.

------
alan_cx
I would immediately thank the interviewer(s) for his or her time, offer to
shake hands and leave.

My reasoning is that if they want to manipulate me in an interview, chances
are they would spend too much time manipulating me in my work. I respond far
better to direct, honest questions. Ask me honestly and I reward that with the
truth. I would tell them this if they asked. They would have their answer, and
I would have demonstrated its truth.

Is that a manipulation in its self?

~~~
seigenblues
I totally agree. He even admits as such that this is the purpose of the
question:

    
    
      "Instead the question ... taps something deeper and more
      closely held.  ... If I know what matters to them, I can
      right away tell if the same things matter to ...
      the organization at large."
    

In other words: "expose something tender and honest, so that we can exploit it
as directly as possible."

~~~
Gnolfo
I really don't see how this is manipulative, who exactly are they trying to
fool? The "tapping into something deeper" isn't some tricksy ploy to reveal
more than you want, it just means the question is crafted to address several
layers of discussion about what you're looking for, all at once.

Unless you're trying to dig into their compensation priorities so you can
lowball them in the right areas, this is just a question aimed at seeing how
well they'd fit in to the company in terms of their own career/strategic
goals, working environment, QA/testing standards, etc. I'd rather get those
things out there in the interview and find out "Oh, yeah we have source
control, and staging/dev servers, but I'd say our devs push about half their
code changes straight to production via scp right off of their workstations.
Saves time that way.", rather than on my second week when I've made X number
of changes and commitments in my lifestyle & career for this job.

------
epaulson
For many people, an honest answer to this question has to include
partner/family considerations, which aren't at all appropriate for an
interviewer to be asking about.

I'd only ever ask this question by first making clear that I only want to know
what you're looking for in a workplace or career goals.

If I got asked this, I'd tell them that the things on the top of my list
aren't things I'm willing to discuss with them, at least until I've
established a friendship with them , and then tell them what I'm looking for
in a workplace, team, and product.

------
angdis
One of the pieces of advice that is drilled into anyone that is looking to
improve their interview skills is to _never_ criticize previous employers.
This question practically begs for that. As a result, a hiring manager is
practically guaranteed to get awkward stilted answers from candidates who are
trying desperately to frame their response in a way that doesn't criticize the
previous employer.

It is all a head-game, sadly.

Candidates never really know if their dealing with someone who expects smooth,
calculated responses or if they're dealing with someone who expects brutal
uncomfortable truth.

~~~
lgieron
It's simple really - if the recruiter expects smooth, calculated responses,
chances are the company sucks - so, by being sincere, you just avoided a
potentially frustrating experience of working for them.

------
moocow01
This is like asking a poker player to show you his cards before you bet. Sorry
but no thanks.

~~~
fleitz
Exactly, which is why skilled players will do something called bluff when
asked such a noob question.

~~~
jarek
This could get meta fast. Employer knowingly asking a noob question, expecting
a candidate to bluff. Candidate knowing the employer is expecting a bluff, and
making their answer believable as a bluff. Employer evaluating the
believability of the bluff...

------
dhimes
In general you are much better off just asking what you want to know. "What
kinds of things have you enjoyed about your previous jobs? What kinds of
things have annoyed you about them?"

One important take-away from his question, as he mentioned in the article, is
how influenced the person is by events that are difficult for him/her, or
anybody else, to control. In general, the more you tie your satisfaction to
things within your control the happier you are likely to be.

But the problem with trying to ascertain such things by making up "fake"
scenario questions is you can't control how your question is being
interpreted. And when you don't know what question is being answered, you are
randomly interpreting the response. And that means the question is, literally,
a waste of time. Again, you are better off asking a direct question.

His question would probably work, however, if the candidate actually does have
such a list for determining which offer to take. If this is the case, the
candidate should hopefully recognize that s/he is (or could be) in a
_negotiation_ and treat his/her answers appropriately.

------
battaile
If an interviewer asked me this then sat back grinning all over themselves
like they'd just knocked it out of the park with this ingenious keyhole to my
soul, it'd definitely make my decisions on whether or not I wanted to work
there easier. Still lol'ing at using the word "imagine" to knock someone off
script.

------
hbz
My favorite interviewing question is: _When was the last time you used your
skills/ability outside of a work context to make your life easier?_

I feel like it's important to have people who think practically about the
kinds of problems they feel like solving and whether they actually make an
attempt to solve them. There's nothing wrong with leaving work at the office
but we tend to look people who are extremely passionate about technology in
general, not just people who use it as a paycheck.

~~~
protomyth
One of my friends always asked "what was the last thing you programmed that
wasn't school or job related". He didn't care what is was (e.g. "I wrote and
Excel macro for my Dad"), he just wanted any answer to show that they used the
skills for themselves.

I like your phrasing better.

------
msmueller
I created an account just to reply to this because I found so many errors in
its logic. First, the question is not simple: it's convoluted (and there's a
typo). An question that would have actually been simple is, "what are your top
3-5 decision drivers for accepting an offer from a company/between multiple
companies?"

Second, leaning on the word "imagine" does nothing to "liberate" your
candidate from scripted answers; it's a common way of introducing a
hypothetical and could be replaced by any number of stock phrases. If you put
too much stock in that phrase for the question-design, you're thinking
shallowly, and doing a disservice to yourself, the interviewee, and language
itself. The ironic is that in posting the question, especially if it
circulates widely, you're guaranteed to eventually get scripted answers.
Third, what you focus on as externalities vs. interalities seem interrelated,
e.g., "I want to do X" is the same as saying "I want to work for a company
that allows me to do X".

I understand the desire for interviewers to get past scripted answers and find
easier ways to select the right people for the job, but questions like this
aren't silver bullets. I also find it funny that people in software would be
so against interviewees having scripted answers; it impresses me that people
can quickly come up with quick answers to difficult questions, not because

Not wanting to end with all criticisms, I do think the last point about a
question like this revealing things about the current/prior employment. If you
get people talking about things they like or dislike, unless they give you
patently stock crap, they're drawing off recent or salient experience.

------
msluyter
_You can’t script imagining, so it forces them away from the script and toward
considering the question from scratch._

You can't script _imaginging_ , but you can script your answer to this
question...

I think it's a reasonable question. I might try it. One I've started asking
recently that's interesting is "tell me about some interesting programming
books/articles you've read recently." If they have ready answers, it indicates
that they're really engaged in the field. If they come up blank, it's not a
good sign, though admittedly, they may be in a lull or have other priorities,
so the question can't be viewed in isolation.

I think all of these questions can be gamed to some extent, if a candidate
really does a lot of research/preparation. Of course. that someone is willing
to put in the time to research/prepare for interviews is probably a good sign.
But just because I've learned to say "I love solving problems!" doesn't mean
I'm great at solving problems.

Hence, when interviewing I prefer to focus on technical problems.

------
blahedo
See, my first thought on reading the question is that this guy was fishing for
answers to the sorts of questions he's not legally allowed to ask—relationship
status, family plans, and so on. This is reinforced (at least to me, unless
I'm misreading) by the comment that "If I know what matters to them, I can
right away tell if the same things matter to me (the hiring manager) and the
organization at large."

So, aside from being manipulative, which lots of interview questions are, this
one also struck me as unethical and borderline illegal.

~~~
lusr
A pity your comment is so low on the list. This isn't even borderline illegal
- at least here in South Africa, if you ask a question like this of me and I
don't get the job, and I think it's because I mentioned my 10 kids in
answering this question, I have pretty solid grounds to charge this as a
unfair discriminatory question and seek recourse from the CCMA (the legal
entity that deals with these sorts of issues in SA).

~~~
instakill
In fact I've heard of many cases being taken to the CCMA for this very reason.

------
djb_hackernews
Can interviewees ask you the same question? I'd imagine money would be at the
very top. If it isn't, my salary requirements just increased.

~~~
mcherm
When I'm hiring, money is a real an notable concern. But it is rarely the TOP
concern.

I can't speak for others, but when _I_ have a candidate ask challenging
questions during the interview, I give them bonus points. In fact, looking to
see what questions the candidate asks is one of the basic factors in my
assessment.

------
Jach
I'm going to drastically oversimplify, but there are two types of
interviewees, and two types of interviewers, but only one of the four matches
leads to a deadly clash as expressed by many other users here in their disdain
for the question.

Interviewees: There are people who Need a Job Now and interviewing all over
and will likely say yes to almost any opportunity, and there are people who
are casually looking around seeing what else is out there, they are in no
hurry and they can easily afford to say no. The first type needs money to
live, they view themselves as a wage slave; the second type could just as well
go start a startup but instead choose to rent out their brain for someone
else's use (and they view themselves as this way, renting a service).

Interviewers: The first type, they do a competence test and they do a
culture/personality test. This can be accomplished in an informal luncheon or
the like. The second type, they pull questions like these, trying to extract
as much information from the candidate's personal life as possible--perhaps
even asking for a Facebook password--or they put the candidate through coding
hoops that don't really test talent but memorization and retention of Java-
school-undergrad-level material that's just a single Google away. (Though
personally I wouldn't mind being asked to implement the binary search
correctly in a statically-sized-int language, especially since even in Java
the official version was wrong for quite some time due to integer overflow.
But this is just a piece of trivia I enjoy, I don't know if I would ask it
unless the job required a good familiarity with architecture and language
detail...)

The job-hunters will fit fine with either interviewer. They'll talk at length
about their own mothers if they think it will help them get the job offer. The
casual brain-renting candidates only match with the casual interviewer,
however, and will happily walk away from the nosy interviewers. It's nice to
see that principle at work in this community, even if there are some that
oppose; we need more people in general, not just hackers, willing to say no to
jobs even at the start of the interview stage when they sense something they
don't like on principle.

------
nanijoe
No way on earth I answer that question as asked, cos quite frankly , how I
decide on which job offer to accept is none of your business. More than
likely, I would answer with "Are you asking me to list the things I find
attractive about this job?"

------
olalonde
Ethics aside, isn't telling what the interviewer wants to hear the optimal
strategy for a rational candidate? I mean, if your goal is to get the job, why
would you be honest with this type of question when it might put you at a
disadvantage?

~~~
lgieron
That's right, but often the goal is to look for a right job, not for any job.
In that case, sincere answer to the question could help forsee any number of
problems (like culture/values mismatch etc.), which benefits both candidate
and recruiter.

~~~
gaius
Not quite. Your goal in an interview is to get an offer. _Then_ you decide,
when you know what your options are.

Most rational people would be willing to take less than their perfect job in
order to pay the rent...

~~~
dspeyer
You may _also_ have a goal of learning more about the company, so that you can
make the later decision more effectively. The goals must be balanced off one
another.

This goal can be more dominant if you already have a pretty good offer
(perhaps continuing at your present employer), so you only benefit from
passing this interview if this company is better.

------
corford
I wouldn't have a problem with that question and I'd answer: Team, scope for
promotion/exploring other roles within the company in the future and
commutability - in that order. Don't know what that says about me (or my
interviewing technique) but that's how I'd automatically respond (because it's
true).

~~~
alan_cx
The problem with the author of this is that there seems to be a smug arrogance
in that he thinks he has invented a super special unique question which no one
will have considered in advance, or have something in their answer kit that
can be quickly and easily altered to fit the question. Which is exactly what
you and some others have quite rightly done.

------
javajosh
It is wise to ask foundational, self-reflective questions in an interview. At
the very least it gives insight into the interviewer's level of self-
awareness, or at least whether or not they are comfortable introspecting. And,
based on the book "Pragmatic Thinking & Learning" by Andy Hunt it seems that
introspection is an essential skill to anyone who has "learned how to learn".

Knowing who you are and what drives you is a very difficult question for most
people. Most of us don't take the time to seriously ask the question of what
drives us. And yet, once we find those drivers, why not be honest about that
insight? What do we have to lose? Isn't this the kind of information we should
be shouting from the rooftops, to find like-minded people and to express
ourselves most fully?

That said, I would choose to ignore the rather obvious attempt to make me
reveal details about past employers and answer the question as if it was about
purely about my principles and motivations.

For the record, I want to use technology to combat the ever-growing tyranny of
complexity, which is the source of an extraordinary volume of what I term
petty injustice. I don't believe in the efficacy of central authority, so my
work must empower individuals to take action for themselves - to select
simpler contracts for example. It is my belief that fighting for a principle I
believe in is the most crucial aspect of selecting a team. That said,
competent work-mates and managers, a viable technology platform and good
compensation are also important, if only from a simple, practical standpoint.

~~~
lhnz
> For the record, I want to use technology to combat the ever-growing tyranny
> of complexity, which is the source of an extraordinary volume of what I term
> petty injustice. I don't believe in the efficacy of central authority, so my
> work must empower individuals to take action for themselves - to select
> simpler contracts for example.

You sound a lot like me. Somehow I woke up one day and started seeing groups
as a network of nodes with poorly designed interfaces. ;)

~~~
javajosh
Good heavens, we should talk then. Drop me a line at javajosh@gmail.com

------
mcherm
I would be interested to see how other Hacker News readers would answer this
question. Feel free to post an answer as a reply to this comment.

~~~
mindcrime
My top 3-5 would be something like (not necessarily in _exactly_ this order)

1) Culture. I want to work in an environment where excellence is expected, and
where employees are empowered and engaged.

2) Physical environment. No "open plan" crap for me. Show me open plan or low
walled cubicles, I'm on my way out the door with a polite "thanks, but no
thanks" more often than not. The only way I'd accept this would be if I'd
rarely be in the office, ala a consulting gig.

3) Money. I expect to be paid fairly... I don't need or demand to be the
highest paid guy around, or anything, but if you try to pay me a low-ball
salary, you're telling me something very important about what your values are
and how you treat employees.

4) Location. I hate long commutes. Being closer to my home is a huge win.

5) Problems. If the problems you're working on are interesting and challenging
that's a big perk in my book.

~~~
zeroonetwothree
My list would be exactly the same, though I'd reorder it slightly.

------
Maro
Disclaimer: We write distributed systems software.

The question I always ask of programmers is this:

You have n=10 computers in a cluster. Every one of them is connected to every
other (but not to itself), using bidirectional TCP connections. How many TCP
connections total in the cluster?

If they can't figure it out, I change it to n=4, then n=3 and ask them to work
their way up from there.

~~~
opendomain
for n=2, are you counting 1 total connection between 2 computers, or EACH
conection from a server to another meaning 2 total connections? Assuming each
connection, is it simply n! or 3628800 for n=10, or is my math wrong?

~~~
newman314
It's not factorial.

SPOILER (do not click):
[http://johnmcmanus7742.wordpress.com/2009/01/22/calculate-
fu...](http://johnmcmanus7742.wordpress.com/2009/01/22/calculate-full-mesh/)

------
brudgers
It's a great question...for a performance review where there is rapport
between the employee and employer.

In an interview, anything one says can be used against you. Those who engage
in amateur psychobabble are most likely to do so.

To put it another way, it's sincere once salary and benefits have been
negotiated.

------
aaronblohowiak
If you are a job hunter, you should know the answer to this because you've
already thought about it.

I usually start a job hunt with a spreadsheet so I can track progress and also
scoring along my key metrics. When I get asked questions similar to this, I
reveal that I have thought about this deeply and discuss my criteria and how I
operationalize things like "good coworkers". So far, the reaction to this
revelation has been quite telling about the person on the other side of the
table; I have gotten everything from disbelief to disgust to admiration. The
marginal cost of being organized (and combatting things like recency bias or
charisma) is minuscule compared to the marginal gain.

~~~
andrewem
I'd love to hear more about your criteria and metrics and how you
operationalize them, especially for less-tangible things like good coworkers.

~~~
aaronblohowiak
metrics: position, notes on boss, code love, product social good, location, $,
required hours, good coworkers,

Operationalizing good coworkers: while evaluating "good" I try to take notes
about skills, morality, humor and pre-existing relationships. Skills are the
easiest and I like to get a sense of their skill level relative to mine for
overlapping skills and also the breadth of skills that they have that I do
not. I have found that morality is binary: are there any red flags? Humor is
trickier. I like to work with people that enjoy themselves but not at the
expense of others. About the last point; there has only been one group that
can have gentle ribbing between coworkers that wasn't an excuse to be mean,
and it was a lot of fun, but ultimately I know that I changed the list of
people that I would want to invite into that environment because it can be
off-putting for people and other people would be tempted to shift the dynamic
for the worst. Self-deprecation, puns, deriding microsoft and your own old
code:yes. Fat jokes: no.

I don't gather info about every metric for every company, as red flags short-
circuit the process.

------
ChristianMarks
Gee, I'd value an employer who values definitional clarity about the work, and
who is uninterested in psychological manipulation. The managers should be very
very smart. Also it should be possible to build on what you know over time
(somewhat like compound interest), instead of dissipating and scattering your
focus on unrelated projects and duties that undermine growth. If there is
concern about "silos" then there should not be a management silo that can
decide to restructure departments and reassign positions without advance
warning. And the statement by Joseph Stiglitz that "change has no inherent
value" ought to be internalized.

------
xxxzx
I have no problem with answering a question like this nor do I really
understand why people are so upset over it. When I'm at an interview I try to
be genuine and honest.. I'm not going to worry about fitting my answers to
what you want them to be in an ideal employee.

I'm also not looking to debate/argue over whether or not it's a good question.
But here would be my response:

1\. The quality of the other employees

2\. The quality AND purpose of the products being built

3\. The quality of management

4\. Required hours.. Do you want me to work 70 hours a week? If so, thanks but
no thanks. I'm a team player and willing to pull extra hours when the occasion
arises, but I have other hobbies that I like to indulge in.

5\. Salary

------
cbr
I would put money near the top for ethical reasons [1] and then feel the need
to justify it awkwardly. How much I make is very important to me because it
determines how much I can give to effective charities [2]. But this doesn't
mean I'll be a bad employee who's "only in it for the money".

[1] <http://www.utilitarian-essays.com/make-money.html>

[2] <http://givewell.org/charities/top-charities>

------
msg
A better question that I always ask, before any other questions in the
interview: "Why do you want to work here?" Then I reject any answer that's not
somewhat unique to our business. "You could do that anywhere, is there
anything specific to this place?" Then I probe the final answer to make sure
it's not BS.

Bad answers: I've heard you make a lot of money here, I want to work on
software development, I like Java. Better: I have friends who've told me about
it and it sounds like the kind of place I want to work. The best answer: I
understand a lot about how your business works and it is a win-win for me to
be here for the following reasons... despite the following minuses...

I was playing Resistance this weekend for the first time. Essentially
Resistance is Mafia with rules, blue vs. red. One of the first things I did
was ask people, "are you a spy?" Like a melodramatic detective. I think there
is an instinct to try this first, and win the game on the basis of a twitching
lip or "say no, nod yes" sort of reaction.

This may work on easily startled people. Same with slamming your hand on the
table in a security clearance interview.

A smarter candidate will figure out you're playing games, which defeats the
purpose. I think you also want to consider the reaction of the candidate after
the interview. Suppose they answer honestly, then figure out what you did to
them.

There's a big difference between trying to learn a prospective employee's
motivations the old fashioned way and trying to trick it out of them.
Especially when a highly motivated employee can be lowballed in a salary
negotiation.

~~~
lhnz
> A smarter candidate will figure out you're playing games, which defeats the
> purpose. I think you also want to consider the reaction of the candidate
> after the interview. Suppose they answer honestly, then figure out what you
> did to them.

It won't make any difference. A smarter candidate would know you're playing a
game but not care. They would give you their honest answer because if you were
not interested you wouldn't hire them and they would not care because of the
manipulation, and if you were interested in hiring them they would not be as
interested because of the manipulation but would understand that despite their
honest answer on a personal question you were impressed by them -- this would
help even things out.

It's win/win.

------
grannyg00se
We all know the reality of the situation. This idea that the word "imagine"
somehow frames the question in a different light is nonsense.

My first response would be "Ok, so you're asking me what my job priorities
are" and go from there. Let's bring things back to reality, and be honest
about what each other is doing.

Also, the question is a classic rehearsal question and its use may be limited.
There may be a lack of honesty and even with an honest answer a person's
priorities are subject to change.

~~~
artsrc
I think the 'imagine' asks for an insincere and interviewer pleasing answer.

The way to get a real answer is to ask about a real situation.

Have you ever had two job offers to consider? What were they? What was
interesting about each of them? Which did you pick? After you worked there how
did it go? Would you evaluate them differently based on your experience of how
it worked out.

Get real detail about real situations and it is much harder to fake. At least
that is what they taught us at 'big company' that I last worked at.

------
pygorex
During an interview both sides should be asking questions in an attempt to
explore whether the position is a good fit for the prospective employee. If as
an interviewee I'm free to ask any question I want I _will_ get to the
questions that help me explore the nature of the company & position. _That's
the whole point of the interview process_

Asking me to prioritize my decision making process into 3-5 neat little bullet
points ranges from annoying and insulting. In asking the question the
interviewer sounds like this:

Interviewer: "I'm assuming you haven't thought through your requirements for
being an employee of my company. I could engage you in conversation like a
normal human being to find out what you want. But I'm too lazy for that.
Please summarize what you want in a convenient format that I can easily
understand."

Interviewee: "This guy doesn't like to think. He values simple answers over
process & conversation. I might have one 'bullet point' that requires a dozen
questions to figure out. I might have a dozen bullet points that could be
answered with two questions. Instead of talking to me he wants me to tell him
what I want to hear. I'm outta here!"

.... see?

~~~
Gnolfo
If they ask for your input and then move on to the next question, absolutely.
But at that point you're blaming the tool and not the user. The conclusion to
draw is the interviewer is lazy / doesn't know what they're doing if they ask
a question like that and move right on without inviting 2-way discussion over
it.

The article clearly intends this to be a jumping off point to talk about what
you're looking for in an employer and work environment in more detail. And it
gets the ball rolling a little faster rather than just saying, "talk about
what you're looking for in an employer and work environment in more detail".

~~~
pygorex
I can see the value as an icebreaker - and to potentially knock an interviewee
out of the sycophant zone and into a more candid state of mind.

Context is everything. Re-reading the article I think I may have been hyper-
parsing the question....

------
drucken
This is one of those questions where the answers are only relevant and
understandable to the candidate themselves and even the act of answering
reveals only the work-life experience of the candidate.

For the above reasons, it naturally favors older or extremely confident
candidates. If this is used as a primary positive filter for employment, then
it is possible to discard a lot of talent, especially young talent.

In addition, the value ambiguity and personal depth of this question could
confuse or incite negative emotions for many people, including even those with
extensive work-life experience. Even if this question were used purely as a
filler in order to attempt to relax the candidate, it would most likely
achieve the opposite response.

Therefore, if I were a hiring manager, I would never use such a broad question
since you could achieve the same with a series of technical questions, resume-
focussed questions, specific value questions, or a cup of coffee/tea/hot
chocolate/water...

To illustrate my point, my answer would be:

1\. Growth.

2\. Association.

3\. Skill set.

4\. Balance.

5\. Compensation.

~~~
richieb
What is "growth"? "Association?"

------
gruuk
My answer would be: that's not how I would choose as it would box me into only
using a limited number of parameters. Each offer must be viewed and compared
as a whole, where multiple smaller benefits may outweigh a larger one so
cannot be eliminated from the comparison.

------
dspeyer
What do you do with the answer to this question once you have it? If I were on
hiring committee and got this in an interview report I'd be annoyed. I cannot
think of any plausible answer that would make me more or less inclined to hire
the candidate.

In fact, let's make that a challenge. Can anyone here think of an answer to
this question that a candidate might plausibly give which would effect your
hiring decision?

------
davemel37
Employees Just Want to be appreciated, and the best way to measure
appreciation is with money.

Any answer you get to that question won't negate the simple reality in the
statement above. Just to reiterate because it is too important to forget!

Your Employees (and all people) Just want to be APPRECIATED! and the money you
pay them is the best way to measure how much you appreciate them!!!

------
chrisbennet
"That's a great question! I wish more companies cared about this sort of
stuff. To save us both some time, while I'm writing these down, why don't you
write down the 5 most important metrics you are going to weigh if you are
deciding between multiple candidates. When we're done we'll just swap papers,
OK?"

~~~
jakejake
It's a good point, I think a lot of job hunters are desperate for a job. They
feel like they need to answer all questions correctly. But they don't feel
like they are entitled to ask those same questions back.

I have never done this but I would love to ask some tricky code puzzles to a
tech interviewer after they have asked me to do their puzzles. If I have to
prove that I'm good, then I'd like proof that I'm joining a team that is
equally good.

------
sktrdie
I would answer "goodbye" and then leave.

------
mixmax
I think the best interview question to ask is " _what question do you think I
should ask?"_

That tells a lot about a candidate, and it gives him/her a chance to talk
about what they're good at. It also shows some respect, which is a good thing
since it's hard to find and hire good people.

~~~
pygorex
Meh, not so much. The interviewer should be to telling the interviewee the
requirements for the position and asking incisive questions that determine if
these requirements are met. _I can't tell you want you want_

------
martininmelb
While I am sure that the author believes that this question drives his
decision, the research indicates that most employers make a decision within
five minutes - and the main driver of that decision is the extent to which the
candidate is like the interviewer.

------
wtvanhest
I would respond with the third thing being money obviously matters no matter
what. That way in the negotiation you can ask for more while citing the
question

------
dkrich
Sorry, who is this guy, and what proof does he have that this is a system
worth using or even writing about? Seems like linkbait to me.

------
inopinatus
The question tells us a great deal about the interviewer, though. He's
insecure, pompous, pedantic. Still want to work here?

------
jemka
>The wording of the question is important, so follow it closely.

'Imagine that they way you go

Do I get extra credit?

------
rorrr
This is a bullshit question. If I heard it, I would immediately know that that
place will not pay well.

I'd ask the interviewer to answer his own question. He would say something
like "smart team, interesting project, ability to work on side projects". And
this would be pure bullshit. Why? Because if someone offers him a billion
dollars per year, he will take it under any conditions. And so would I.

------
lhnn
Holy shit, what is the drama with this question?

An employer is trying to figure out the motivations of the worker. How is this
wrong? How is setting up a scenario manipulative? Why is everyone so hostile
to this?

------
horsehead
I kind of like the question, only because I like stuff that isn't run of the
mill.

I'd also note that, if the question is about 'imagining' certain scenarios,
then can the answer really be that honest to start with?

I.e., it's easy to think that i'd do X or X in Y circumstance, but if you ask
hypotheticals, you'll never get a qualitative answer. I'm sure this scenario
actually happens often, but imagining can mean you're imagining an interview
with NASA as an astronaut and with McDonald's as a burger flipper.

