
The Most Revealing Job Interview Question - kevin_morrill
http://refer.ly/blog/most-revealing-interview-question/
======
jazzychad
Hmm, I'm not sure I like the idea of intentionally trying to steer the
candidate off on a tangent. It feels like a trap.

In an interview, the interviewer literally has all the power, and saying "no"
or refusing to answer a question posed by the interviewer seems rather
difficult.

This would be doubly hard for me since I like to teach (both my parents are
teachers and I love to explain things to people so that they can understand
them). If a person shows genuine interest in a topic by asking a question that
might go in a tangent, I generally want their curiosity to be sated before
moving on; in some cases a deeper understanding of a related topic will help
educate them on the main topic.

Anyway, I think I would fall for this trap for both reasons (not wanting to
refuse the interviewer and also wanting to genuinely teach someone). I'm
conflicted.

However, I like the overall idea of the question. So much time during actual
real-world development is spent communicating between coworkers about how a
system works or will be implemented. I think being able to gauge a candidate's
communication/knowledge transfer ability is very important and a good
indicator of success.

~~~
kscaldef
> Hmm, I'm not sure I like the idea of intentionally trying to steer the
> candidate off on a tangent. It feels like a trap.

And, yet, it's quite a realistic model of what happens in meetings and
presentations all the time.

> In an interview, the interviewer literally has all the power, and saying
> "no" or refusing to answer a question posed by the interviewer seems rather
> difficult.

You could say the same with regards to managers or other higher-ups in real
workplace environments. It's an important skill to be able to say no, or
deflect gracefully.

In this situation, saying "I'm not going to answer that question" is the wrong
response. Something like "that's an interesting question, but it will take
more than 5 minutes to answer. I'd be happy to go into more detail later if
you'd like." is.

~~~
mikeash
It's a realistic model, sure, but the stakes aren't the same.

In a meeting or presentation, you have a subject and an agenda and many people
present who expect you to cover them.

In an interview, it's one-on-one. If the interviewer asks you A, then stops
and asks you B, there's no reason _not_ to move to B. If the interviewer is
suddenly asking about B, they must want to know about it. There are no other
stakeholders present who might care more about A. You didn't even know you
were going to be talking about A until a few minutes before!

It's an important skill to be able to say "no" and stay focused on a subject.
But this is a shitty test for finding out whether a person has that skill.

~~~
TWAndrews
If you have to interact with customers at all, this is a very realistic
situation. The candidate would get points for following up on the tangent
question after demonstrating the ability to control the flow of the
conversation.

That may not be key for all positions, but for more senior roles, and all
roles which are predominantly customer facing, it's absolutely critical.

~~~
mikeash
I disagree. There's no _goal_ here.

Being able to say "no" is important, but so is knowing when to say "no" and
when to say "yes".

If somebody tries to drag you onto an irrelevant tangent in a meeting, that's
when you should say "no". If somebody is talking to you one-on-one and you
discover that they actually care about something different than you thought,
that's when you should say "yes".

The problem with this scenario is that it pretends to measure a person's
ability to say "no" _all while giving them no reason whatsoever to actually
say "no"._

If you want to test a person's ability to say "no", you have to put them in a
situation where that's actually the correct move.

------
nostromo
Giving credit where it's due - this is a famous Google interview question.
[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405270230491110457644...](http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304911104576444363668512764.html)

~~~
kevin_morrill
I actually heard this question before Google even existed. It's not my
original idea either. This is an old Microsoft interview question, and I would
imagine it predates them too.

~~~
crag
I ran into this question at Novell in the early 90's. I answered it by giving
a detailed description of Issac Asimov's [fictional] theories of Psychohistory
(from Foundation).

I got the job. But I doubt my answer was the reason why. But it did get
chuckles from everyone in the room. I never ran into this type of question
again. I kind of wish i had though. Lots more sci-fi to run through.

I'm sure it predates Novell too.

~~~
Jd
Would love to hear more about your answer to the fictional theories of
psychohistory. I have not read the Foundation series in a long time, and I've
never quite understood the predictive mechanism, how possible Asimov actually
thought it was, or the wrinkle introduced by the Mule.

~~~
crag
From <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychohistory_%28fictional%29>:

 _Psychohistory depends on the idea that, while one cannot foresee the actions
of a particular individual, the laws of statistics as applied to large groups
of people could predict the general flow of future events. Asimov used the
analogy of a gas: an observer has great difficulty in predicting the motion of
a single molecule in a gas, but can predict the mass action of the gas to a
high level of accuracy. (Physicists know this as the Kinetic theory.) Asimov
applied this concept to the population of his fictional Galactic Empire, which
numbered a quintillion. The character responsible for the science's creation,
Hari Seldon, established two axioms:

1\. that the population whose behaviour was modeled should be sufficiently
large 2\. that the population should remain in ignorance of the results of the
application of psychohistorical analyses _

I believe we are already laying the "foundation for this study. Look at the
market. The foundation of the market is us - our consumption (which I believe
is ultimately unsustainable - but that's another discussion). At it's core,
that's what the market is all about. Right now I suspect Goldman (and the
other investment houses) have stopped trying to _predict_ the market. They are
trying to _control_ the market. Which leads to many of the problems we have
now.

Without accurate data, predictions, you can't completely control risk. So risk
remains.

Anyway to answer your question; I just repeated the theory of Asimov and
argued why I thought the theories of psychohistory were already in practice.
Which of course they _were_ , since everyone _was_ trying to predict the
course of the market; which meant predicting the course of the herd. So if you
studied people (all of the people), you could win in the market.

But much of the market has changed in the last 20 years. I believe, today it's
more about control then prediction.

~~~
Jd
Hmmm. But the Mule operated outside the Seldon plan.

~~~
desas
Psychohistory involves predicting the effects of large numbers of people and
assumed that single individuals could not significantly change the future of
the galaxy.

Without giving too much away, The Mule was a unique being who could not have
been predicted, who could significantly change the future of a whole galaxy.

The Seldon Plan did have contingencies for this kind of thing, hence the
Second Foundation novel.

------
nollidge
> Pick any topic you want: a hobby you have, a book you’ve read, a project you
> worked on–anything.

Hopefully there's more guidance than this, because I feel like I'd freeze up
and start "um"ing for five minutes trying to decide the best concept to
explain. Maybe this says more about me than the exercise, though...

~~~
cryptoz
That's exactly the point. The ideal candidate presumably has a number of ideas
ready to go - the question is very similar to other interview questions and
you should already be preparing to talk about your hobbies and interests. The
question ensures the candidate can think quickly, pick a topic they know
about, and talk about it coherently. If you can't do that, you're probably not
a good fit for the team. Therefore, the question is an excellent interview
question: it identifies those people who are very passionate about
<something>, who are organized enough to explain it on the spot and who can
interact well while teaching.

Now, to the point about you: you should practice this. Being good at talking
about your hobbies and interests in technical detail while explaining clearly
is an extremely valuable skill. Learn it.

~~~
eli_gottlieb
I dunno. What if my non-professional hobbies are controversial, or simply
derided? I see no reason prospective employers should know that I'm a
socialist or enjoy anime conventions, and many of them would almost certainly
disapprove of one of those two.

~~~
cryptoz
Edit: I think I hold exclusively controversial hobbies / books / opinions. I
would love this question so much if I ever saw it in an interview.
Controversial topics seem to be perfectly suited to this question.

Original:

The point of an interview is two-fold: the company is looking to find a good
match for an open position, and the candidate is looking for work. Neither of
you wants to enter an agreement that will turn sour.

It is a reasonable position that if you have no interests, or hobbies, or any
read books at all that you are comfortable talking about with your employer,
that you are likely a poor fit for the company. The topic does not have to be
non-professional, either. Pick something that relates to the job if you must.

Isn't about half the world's population somewhat socialist? Or fans of anime?
Those two examples you picked are, in my opinion, absolutely _ideal_ topics to
answer this question with. Why would you be so afraid to talk about them?

~~~
philwelch
> It is a reasonable position that if you have no interests, or hobbies, or
> any read books at all that you are comfortable talking about with your
> employer, that you are likely a poor fit for the company.

Really? I dunno--I always saw employment as more of a business transaction,
and I don't give a damn about the personal lives of those I do business with.

~~~
sadga
That's extreme. You spend over half your life at work. It _is_ personal. The
most popular employers make an effort to contribute to employee's personal
lives.

~~~
philwelch
> You spend over half your life at work

Well, that depends. 40 hours a week out of 168 is less than 1/4, but it's
certainly true that you spend at least half of your weekday, waking life at
work. But more pertinently, it should be time that's set aside for _work_. I
don't know why what we do outside of work should even be a factor, or why I
should have to share the cultural values of my coworkers. It comes dangerously
close to discrimination.

------
wallflower
"Sergey [Brin] nodded his agreement, then asked about my six months in
Siberia, casually switching to Russian to see how much I had picked up.

Finally, he leaned forward and fired his best shot, what he came to call 'the
hard question'. "I'm going to give you five minutes," he announced. "When I
come back, I want you to explain to me something complicated that I don't
already know." He then rolled out of the room towards the snack area.

I looked at Cindy. "He's very curious about everything," she said. "You can
talk about a hobby, something technical, whatever you want. Just make sure
it's something you understand very well."

... I decided to go with the general theory of marketing, which was fresh in
my mind because I'd only learned it recently..

I went to the whiteboard and furiously drew circles and squares and unleashed
arrows like Legolas. I was nervous, but not very. Sergey bounced on a ball and
asked questions that required me to make up things up on the spot...

...

Later I found out that Sergey did this with everyone he interviewed. An hour
wasted with an unqualified candidate wasn't a total loss if he gained insight
into something new."

"I'm Feeling Lucky: The Confessions of Google Employee #59" - Douglas Edwards

------
tokenadult
The submitted site seems to be having trouble keeping up with the referrals
from Hacker News, judging by its response time. (And that is amusing for a
site called "refer.ly" that is all about user referrals. The site still needs
upgrading to work at scale.)

The question is "I want you to explain something to me. Pick any topic you
want: a hobby you have, a book you’ve read, a project you worked on–anything.
You’ll have just 5 minutes to explain it. At the beginning of the 5 minutes
you shouldn’t assume anything about what I know, and at the end I should
understand whatever is most important this topic."

I have to say that the proposed job interview question is interesting, and the
thought process outline in the blog post kindly submitted here for evaluating
answers to the question is also interesting. That made me think of a way to
evaluate the hiring procedure mentioned in this blog post--do empirical
validation of whether people hired through that procedure really do better
work over the course of their career than people hired through other
procedures. That's the scientific way to look at what hiring procedure to use.

Here, in a FAQ that should take less than five minutes to read for a native
speaker of English, is what is most important about what science has validated
on the topic of company hiring procedures. The review article by Frank L.
Schmidt and John E. Hunter, "The Validity and Utility of Selection Models in
Personnel Psychology: Practical and Theoretical Implications of 85 Years of
Research Findings," Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 124, No. 2, 262-274

[http://mavweb.mnsu.edu/howard/Schmidt%20and%20Hunter%201998%...](http://mavweb.mnsu.edu/howard/Schmidt%20and%20Hunter%201998%20Validity%20and%20Utility%20Psychological%20Bulletin.pdf)

sums up, current to 1998, a meta-analysis of much of the HUGE peer-reviewed
professional literature on the industrial and organizational psychology
devoted to business hiring procedures. There are many kinds of hiring
criteria, such as in-person interviews, telephone interviews, resume reviews
for job experience, checks for academic credentials, personality tests, and so
on. There is much published study research on how job applicants perform after
they are hired in a wide variety of occupations.

[http://www.siop.org/workplace/employment%20testing/testtypes...](http://www.siop.org/workplace/employment%20testing/testtypes.aspx)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: If you are hiring for any kind of job in the United States,
prefer a work-sample test as your hiring procedure. If you are hiring in most
other parts of the world, use a work-sample test in combination with a general
mental ability test.

The overall summary of the industrial psychology research in reliable
secondary sources is that two kinds of job screening procedures work
reasonably well. One is a general mental ability (GMA) test (an IQ-like test,
such as the Wonderlic personnel screening test). Another is a work-sample
test, where the applicant does an actual task or group of tasks like what the
applicant will do on the job if hired. (But the calculated validity of each of
the two best kinds of procedures, standing alone, is only 0.54 for work sample
tests and 0.51 for general mental ability tests.) Each of these kinds of tests
has about the same validity in screening applicants for jobs, with the general
mental ability test better predicting success for applicants who will be
trained into a new job. Neither is perfect (both miss some good performers on
the job, and select some bad performers on the job), but both are better than
any other single-factor hiring procedure that has been tested in rigorous
research, across a wide variety of occupations. So if you are hiring for your
company, it's a good idea to think about how to build a work-sample test into
all of your hiring processes.

Because of a Supreme Court decision in the United States (the decision does
not apply in other countries, which have different statutes about employment),
it is legally risky to give job applicants general mental ability tests such
as a straight-up IQ test (as was commonplace in my parents' generation) as a
routine part of hiring procedures. The Griggs v. Duke Power, 401 U.S. 424
(1971) case

[http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8655598674229196...](http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8655598674229196978&q=Griggs+Duke+Power&hl=en&as_sdt=2,24)

interpreted a federal statute about employment discrimination and held that a
general intelligence test used in hiring that could have a "disparate impact"
on applicants of some protected classes must "bear a demonstrable relationship
to successful performance of the jobs for which it was used." In other words,
a company that wants to use a test like the Wonderlic, or like the SAT, or
like the current WAIS or Stanford-Binet IQ tests, in a hiring procedure had
best conduct a specific validation study of the test related to performance on
the job in question. Some companies do the validation study, and use IQ-like
tests in hiring. Other companies use IQ-like tests in hiring and hope that no
one sues (which is not what I would advise any company). Note that a brain-
teaser-type test used in a hiring procedure could be challenged as illegal if
it can be shown to have disparate impact on some job applicants. A company
defending a brain-teaser test for hiring would have to defend it by showing it
is supported by a validation study demonstrating that the test is related to
successful performance on the job. Such validation studies can be quite
expensive. (Companies outside the United States are regulated by different
laws. One other big difference between the United States and other countries
is the relative ease with which workers may be fired in the United States,
allowing companies to correct hiring mistakes by terminating the employment of
the workers they hired mistakenly. The more legal protections a worker has
from being fired, the more reluctant companies will be about hiring in the
first place.)

The social background to the legal environment in the United States is
explained in many books about hiring procedures

[http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=SRv-
GZkw6...](http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=SRv-
GZkw6TEC&oi=fnd&pg=PA271&dq=Validity+and+Utility+of+Selection+Models+in+Personnel+Psychology&ots=iCXkgXrlOV&sig=ctblj9SW2Dth7TceaFSNIdVMoEw#v=onepage&q=Validity%20and%20Utility%20of%20Selection%20Models%20in%20Personnel%20Psychology&f=false)

[http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=SRv-
GZkw6...](http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=SRv-
GZkw6TEC&oi=fnd&pg=PA95&dq=Validity+and+Utility+of+Selection+Models+in+Personnel+Psychology&ots=iCXkgXrnMW&sig=LKLi-
deKtnP20VYZo9x0jfvqzLI#v=onepage&q=Validity%20and%20Utility%20of%20Selection%20Models%20in%20Personnel%20Psychology&f=false)

Some of the social background appears to be changing in the most recent few
decades, with the prospect for further changes.

<http://intl-pss.sagepub.com/content/17/10/913.full>

[http://www.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/fryer/files/Fryer_R...](http://www.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/fryer/files/Fryer_Racial_Inequality.pdf)

[http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=frfUB3GWl...](http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=frfUB3GWlMYC&oi=fnd&pg=PA9&dq=Validity+and+Utility+of+Selection+Models+in+Personnel+Psychology+%22predictive+validity%22+Duke+Power&ots=5O9Hx_E1vY&sig=g-zERWztBWq3h4guEuv9VVkTh8I#v=onepage&q=Validity%20and%20Utility%20of%20Selection%20Models%20in%20Personnel%20Psychology%20%22predictive%20validity%22%20Duke%20Power&f=false)

Previous discussion on HN pointed out that the Schmidt & Hunter (1998) article
showed that multi-factor procedures work better than single-factor procedures,
a summary of that article we can find in the current professional literature,
for example "Reasons for being selective when choosing personnel selection
procedures" (2010) by Cornelius J. König, Ute-Christine Klehe, Matthias
Berchtold, and Martin Kleinmann:

"Choosing personnel selection procedures could be so simple: Grab your copy of
Schmidt and Hunter (1998) and read their Table 1 (again). This should remind
you to use a general mental ability (GMA) test in combination with an
integrity test, a structured interview, a work sample test, and/or a
conscientiousness measure."

[http://geb.uni-
giessen.de/geb/volltexte/2012/8532/pdf/prepri...](http://geb.uni-
giessen.de/geb/volltexte/2012/8532/pdf/preprint_j.1468_2389.2010.00485.x.pdf)

But the 2010 article notes, looking at actual practice of companies around the
world, "However, this idea does not seem to capture what is actually happening
in organizations, as practitioners worldwide often use procedures with low
predictive validity and regularly ignore procedures that are more valid (e.g.,
Di Milia, 2004; Lievens & De Paepe, 2004; Ryan, McFarland, Baron, & Page,
1999; Scholarios & Lockyer, 1999; Schuler, Hell, Trapmann, Schaar, & Boramir,
2007; Taylor, Keelty, & McDonnell, 2002). For example, the highly valid work
sample tests are hardly used in the US, and the potentially rather useless
procedure of graphology (Dean, 1992; Neter & Ben-Shakhar, 1989) is applied
somewhere between occasionally and often in France (Ryan et al., 1999). In
Germany, the use of GMA tests is reported to be low and to be decreasing
(i.e., only 30% of the companies surveyed by Schuler et al., 2007, now use
them)."

Integrity tests have limited validity standing alone, but appear to have
significant incremental validity when added to a general mental ability test
or work-sample test.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_integrity_testing>

[http://apps.opm.gov/ADT/Content.aspx?page=3-06&JScript=1](http://apps.opm.gov/ADT/Content.aspx?page=3-06&JScript=1)

<http://www.princeton.edu/~ota/disk2/1990/9042/9042.PDF>

[http://www.hotelschool.cornell.edu/research/chr/pubs/reports...](http://www.hotelschool.cornell.edu/research/chr/pubs/reports/abstract-14602.html)

AFTER EDIT: A kind comment to this comment graciously assumes I wrote this FAQ
only just after when the article opening this thread was submitted. In fact,
as was pointed out by a kind reply to that comment, I have prepared this FAQ
document in advance, because questions about company hiring procedures
frequently come up on Hacker News. I began summarizing the research about six
months ago, and other participants here on HN have helped me take this FAQ
through several revisions as it reached its current form about two months ago.
Questions about hiring procedures come up again and again on Hacker News, and
I like to store electrons to conserve keystrokes.

~~~
SoftwareMaven
I agree that intelligence and work samples are the most critical things to
look at. The trick with work samples is that most people focus too narrowly.

Yes, coding is a critical part, so don't skip it. But so is team communication
(no matter how great of a programmer you are, if you won't respond to my
emails, I won't think you are a great employee). So are code reviews (if you
call people morons for not agreeing with your style, no matter how great of a
programmer you are, I won't think you are a great employee). So is mentoring
(if you can't explain concepts to people who aren't as
smart/experienced/whatever as you, no matter how great of a programmer you
are, I won't think you are a great employee).

I could go on. I think it is some of these softer skills that many interview
questions have tried (and mostly failed) to suss out. Back to the OP, I can
see it being a reasonable effort at experiencing some of the non-coding work
requirements.

Much better than "how many ping-pong balls would it take to fill this room"
and "design a nuclear reactor for me", both of which have been asked of me in
web developer interviews.

~~~
rlt3
What were the interviewers trying to find out by asking those questions?

~~~
Lost_BiomedE
The ping pong ball question has been used a lot to see how/if engineers will
attempt to give a reasonable estimate with proper caveats. No attempt is auto-
fail, as is going into too much detail, and the rest is judged by the
reasoning, approach, and if decent upper and lower bounds are given.

I imagine the reactor is similar but also checks if you can say where you are
not competent and should defer or delegate.

------
alabut
For those that can't see the post, try this - it's a cached version from
Instapaper:
[http://www.instapaper.com/text?u=http%3A%2F%2Frefer.ly%2Fblo...](http://www.instapaper.com/text?u=http%3A%2F%2Frefer.ly%2Fblog%2Fmost-
revealing-interview-question%2F)

And we're sorry about the downtime on the blog! We're trying to fix it as we
speak and it kind of caught us off guard, because the blog's handled being on
the front page of HN all through the summer without a hiccup.

~~~
jgrahamc
Could always try a little CloudFlare to handle the load.

~~~
fooandbarify
I think a disclaimer might be appropriate here ;) Not that I mind at all;
CloudFlare is awesome.

------
jergosh
That is great advice on how to hire mindreaders. While the first idea
(explaining something concisely) is defensible, the second (testing if people
will 'stay on topic' when deliberately asked about something else) is just
crazy.

~~~
danielweber
I put a piece of paper on the desk in front of them. It has the number "3"
with a big red X through it. Then I hold a baseball bat in a threatening
position and tell them to give me an integer between 1 and 10.

This technique works wonders, as I'm able to filter out the 90% of candidates
who are losers.

Spoiler: the right answer is 8.

------
jbredeche
Saw this in an article about Google from last year:
[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405270230491110457644...](http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304911104576444363668512764.html)

About Sergey Brin: "I'm going to give you five minutes," he told me. "When I
come back, I want you to explain to me something complicated that I don't
already know." He then rolled out of the room toward the snack area. I looked
at Cindy. "He's very curious about everything," she told me. "You can talk
about a hobby, something technical, whatever you want. Just make sure it's
something you really understand well."

Really like this. Covers a lot of bases in a single question, such as
curiosity, depth, interpersonal skills, etc.

------
tharris0101
I hate, hate, HATE gimmicky interview questions. At my job I am asked
frequently to be on interview panels for my own department and sometimes other
departments. It seems like every manager running the interviews throw out
these trick questions at some point or another and I just cringe.

There is no magic recipe for interviews. Ask about the person, ask about their
experience, see work examples if appropriate and ask some questions to gauge
knowledge level for the position being applied for. Anything more and you are
just going to second guess yourself out of a good candidate.

------
pixelbath
This submission has only 14 points at this time, and the server is already a
smoking crater.

Lesson: Ensure your infrastructure can handle the traffic _before_ you submit
links to social sites.

~~~
jiggy2011
How do you know how much traffic you will get?

I have no idea how many people visit HN and how many click on any given link
in what space of time.

Maybe PG or someone can give some guidance?

~~~
waivej
I saw a load of about 200-250 simultaneous visitors when one of my sites got
posted from ycombinator to the reddit. After 12 hours it tapered off.

~~~
nerfhammer
There's no excuse for failing under that kind of load serving what is
essentially a small, static text document.

------
secnews
You can assess almost nothing that would distinguish one qualified candidate
from another to determine who is better spending five minutes with a person.
The fact that you see the faults you predicted when you were overruled on
hiring decisions is a confirmation bias, not a scientific study of any kind.

Job interviews are a terrible method of hiring good long term people, just a
necessary evil to weed out the moronic or insane. The concentration has to be
long term on how the person does on the job, the willingness to work hard to
retain good people and get rid of ones who aren't working out.

People who are involuntarily committed are observed for more than an hour,
because it's known that an insane person can hold it together and appear
normal for longer than that period of time before they start talking to people
who aren't there.

I couldn't be more sick of posts with "that one interview question" and people
who think they are clairvoyant "five minute judges" of character.

------
bulltale
Very good question. This could not only apply to programmers, but anyone
involved in communicating complex issues (medical personnel, engineers, etc).

On a side note, I do not read that many articles about the effectiveness of
hiring. It certainly deserves more attention, because the good people in the
right places is so important.

Start-up idea: Provide companies with interview questions for specific jobs,
and then measure employee success/failure and use this to improve the process.

------
grannyg00se
"At the beginning of the 5 minutes you shouldn’t assume anything about what I
know"

This part of the question would really throw me off. If I want to explain wood
working, and I can't assume you know what wood is, we are in trouble.

I think it is meant to say don't assume there is any domain specific knowledge
known ahead of time. That would make more sense to me.

------
CookWithMe
How about a meta-answer?

"I am really passionate about an interview question, which I like to call the
most revealing job interview question.

It’s without a doubt my favorite interview question, because it only take 5
minutes and tells me a remarkable amount about candidates. Even though it’s
not a technical question per se, I still give it to every programmer I
interview.

[...]

For senior positions, I will ask a question early in the 5 minutes that is a
complete tangent and has little to do with their goal. A star candidate will
politely refuse to go down this rat hole and insist that we stay on topic.
This seems unfair since an they’re in an interview and just doing what they’re
being asked. In reality though, the very same thing happens often in real
work. Even mangers do not innately know what is most important about a topic,
and it’s key to have confident people on the team that add focus to
conversations."

------
dollarpizza
_For senior positions, I will ask a question early in the 5 minutes that is a
complete tangent and has little to do with their goal. A star candidate will
politely refuse to go down this rat hole and insist that we stay on topic.
This seems unfair since an they’re in an interview and just doing what they’re
being asked._

Got that right. Trick questions are always unfair (and mildly insulting, and
just a plain waste of time) in interviews, just like they are in real life.

"Star interviewers", on the other hand, know that there's no reason to ask
candidates to jump through artificial hoops like these.

------
dror
While interesting and thoughtful, I dislike trick interview questions where
you tell the interviewer one thing, but look for another. The first problem is
that someone who knows what you're doing, had read this article, for instance,
has a huge advantage. The other problem is that it during an interview, I try
to get people to relax so that I can get a sense of what they're really like.
When they're on their guard of trick questions, it creates the opposite
environment.

~~~
kevin_morrill
I think the "trick" elements of it may have been over emphasized by my blog
relative to how I really do this question. Ultimately, the core of the
question is hard enough, and does plenty to figure out who's a really good
communicator. Just explaining something in essential form is actually quite
hard.

------
hbz
Can somebody just post the question? Server's aren't responding.

~~~
pgrote
I want you to explain something to me. Pick any topic you want: a hobby you
have, a book you’ve read, a project you worked on–anything. You’ll have just 5
minutes to explain it. At the beginning of the 5 minutes you shouldn’t assume
anything about what I know, and at the end I should understand whatever is
most important this topic. During the 5 minutes, I might ask you some
questions, and you can ask me questions. Take as much time as you want to
think it through, and let me know when you want to start.

------
rogerbinns
The question I ask at the beginning is "tell me about something you are proud
of". This helps sets them at ease, gets them to brag/market themselves and is
positive.

Later on I pick something prominent on the CV/resume and ask them to explain
it in detail on the whiteboard. I try to pick something with multiple
components communicating over time (web browsers/mobile clients talking to
servers is good). That requires sequencing, boxes, and arrows. The answer also
helps set expectations on other items on the CV/resume - if they can't explain
something they claim to know well then the other items are likely an
exaggeration too.

I never penalize answers of "I don't know" to questions about parts, but am
astonished at how few candidates will say that. For example they'll say "there
is a POST". I'll ask what a POST is. They'll mumble something incomprehensible
about HTTP. So I'll ask what a POST is, again. They'll mumble something about
GET, and I'll give up. There is no problem with not knowing -
Google/Wikipedia/Stackoverflow will address almost all things - but it is a
huge red flag not understanding something, being unable to explain it, and
being unprepared to say so.

------
bproctor
Why can't you find out the same information about the persion by just engaging
in normal conversation, asking them about their interests, and asking
reasonable follow up questions?

Presenting it as some kind of weird test that makes the interviewee feel
awkward and suspicious is no way to conduct an interview. It says more about
how bad the interviewer is.

~~~
Caligula
They avoid a normal conversation because then the interviewer would not be
able to be achieve a master smug rating. You need to be psychic and 'get' what
direction or type of response that they expect.

------
jamesli
The post is apparently a marketing effort. The interview question is pretty
old. If it is that effective as claimed, it would have been known and applied
widely. (Then, candidates will prepare for the question and it is not
revealing at all.)

Also, claiming any interview question as <bold> MOST </bold> revealing is
simply simple-minded.

------
Jarihd
>>> Here’s how I set up the question:

>>> I want you to explain something to me. Pick any topic you want: a hobby
you have, a book you’ve read, a project you worked on–anything. You’ll have
just 5 minutes to explain it.

I am an experienced technical guy. In case of technical interview if somebody
starts away with that kind of question; i would take that in a negative way. I
hate it when interviewers instead of being focused on their requirements focus
on unnecessary things. As a job seeker i would like to be felt that i am
required for the position; and that am not just a guy seeking money or a
change in job. I would like to have the interviewer ask me questions for the
job-position that i've applied; such that i feel motivated to continue; and
know that the interviewer is serious about the position; and is just not
filling up vacant company position.

------
maak
I've interviewed at many places, and received many offers. What ever happened
to no BS, sit down and have an honest conversation. I'm done with interview
questions.

People hiring fret so much about tricking candidates into revealing certain
qualities. The candidate will give you the answer they think you want.

------
mlinsey
This is one of my favorite interview questions as well! I originally got the
idea from an autobiography of an early Google employee; apparently this was
one of Sergey's favorite questions.

Definitely helps you see how effective people are at organizing their thinking
and communicating it effectively.

------
hnriot
I would have thought that the author would have bothered to proof read the
question.

~~~
alabut
It's not given in written form - it's a friendly oral conversation.

------
mrwilliamchang
I think this post has a lot of interesting points, but in general I find
asking interviewees questions that are not related to their job a little weird
because no you are basing your judgement on things unrelated to the actual
position.

However, if we changed this question to "in 5 mins. please explain the most
important partt of X" where X is some relatively commonly understood computer
science topic, I think it would be a much better interview question. And if
you want you can still look for the traits empathy, goal directed, etc..

------
pearkes
> I will ask a question early in the 5 minutes that is a complete tangent and
> has little to do with their goal. A star candidate will politely refuse to
> go down this rat hole and insist that we stay on topic.

These types of "trick" questions don't allude to anything. A star candidate
also wants to respect their interviewer and refusing to answer a question can
be seen as disrespectful.

Granted, the characteristic you're trying to surface is a fantastic one
(saying no) - but this is not a surefire way of discovering it.

~~~
Caligula
It is a terrible way of discovering it.

It's the same as if they asked you a php question. You answer it, and then
they say 'wrong!!!! the right answer is php sucks, in ruby I do it like
so:...'

------
pphp
I refer.ly they are looking for a senior software engineer with good knowledge
of php and mysql. So perhaps the title should be "The Most Revealing Job
Interview Question for Finding a Good PHP Developer".

A very conservative approach, in this landscape every single decision must be
attached to a clear goal, there is no room for experimentation, you should
follow a direct goal Explain to your team how can get they solve the problems
for their clients and describe the path for this goal.

------
switchcard
Based on the numbers provided in the post, it sounds like the best case
scenario is:

o). 41 people got hired in total after being asked this question. o). 4 of
those were hired despite answering it badly. o). Those 4 people did not do
well. (these were hires where the manager was specifically overruled in hiring
them) o). The other 37 did well. (these were hires where the manager was not
overruled)

Ie. an interesting, thought provoking post, but tough to draw any definitive
conclusions..

------
praptak
I remember a similar test from one of the books by Lister & DeMarco. They also
mentioned one caveat not present in the linked article: they advice not to let
the candidate choose the topic but instead let them prepare a presentation on
a pre-chosen one. The rationale for this is that you might see passion and
quality that are only attached to topics the candidate is passionate about if
the choice of the topic is with the candidate.

~~~
bduerst
I had to do this in an interview for a software project manager position. I
presented on how GFP-tagging of proteins works in biochemistry research, to an
audience of glassy eyed HR reps.

I was hired, but the point is that you can't allow the presenter to take
something too technical, otherwise the audience won't understand the jargon.

------
jrockway
Computers don't have empathy. Sometimes a cold and rational personality is
what you need when you have to deal with compiler errors and stack traces all
day.

------
krmmalik
Slightly tangential.

I've been running an experiment of my own. As part of my work, I need to hire
freelancers for dev, design and so on. It's not specific to the tech field, I
also hire virtual assistants as well.

I've been working with devs on and off for about 10 years and have my fair
share of experiences.

I don't interview people that I hire/sub-contract to, I just chat to them.
Maybe there are people out there that do interview, but I find it a bit
strange, so asking the "5 min" question as per the blog post would be a little
weird.

But I've been doing some experimenting for quite some time. It's really
important that the people that i choose to sub-contract to work well with me
as part of a team.

When put out an ad for a freelancer of a particular kind, I deliberately say
something that paints me as a potentially difficult client. I tend not to let
on how much I know about the field that i am looking to hire in either.

The results are always amazing. The ones that contact me that don't make even
the slightest mention of the possibility of me being difficult, or find a way
to laugh about it, are the ones that i choose to do business with first.

These people are so intent on focusing on the positives that they don't even
notice my poor behaviour. It's that enthusiastic attitude that makes them a
really good team player.

Of course, after i establish the business relationship with them, i do my
level best not to be a difficult client for them.

Personally, i always feel that the relationship you have is far more important
than the skill set, and the rates being charged.

I've tried this experiment a few times - I call it my freelance filter.

One example is a project that a freelancer worked on for me when i first tried
this filter. His skill set was a bit worrying to me. I had spoken to others
that were more experienced, but i loved his attitude and he passed my filter
test with flying colours.

Anyway, i hired him and he far exceeded my expectations in every way. Was very
responsive, communicated really well, exceeded my expectations on the project
and over-delivered voluntarily and gave plenty of his own creative input
without being detrimental to the project.

Anyway - just thought i'd share. It might rile a few people up, but maybe one
day someone will benefit from using this process.

~~~
SoftwareMaven
Or you are simply weeding out the top class of freelancers before they even
contact you because they have enough options that dealing with a potentially
aggravating client isn't worth a response.

I do agree that, of those who remain, filtering out those who fixate on
negative aspects of the relationship is a good idea. Those people will often
look for negative things, even if none are there, making them painful to work
with.

~~~
krmmalik
That's also deliberate by me as well. If they have enough options and they're
busy enough then we shouldn't be working together because they have a fair
amount on their plate.

It's not a perfect filter. You are indeed correct. I would be wary about a
client that demonstrates certain traits as well.

------
revelation
_I do not give any “uh huh” or “I see” kind of interjections that underlie
most conversations._

And you want to use this method to gauge a candidates communication skills?
Human communication is a very complicated and error prone process. If you're
going to cut out all the vital clues, how you can expect it not to fail
horribly? Feedback from both sides is essential.

~~~
d0m
No. _At first_ , he doesn't give any indications to check if the candidate
recognize this lack of understanding.

As you said it very well:

    
    
      If you're going to cut out all the vital clues, how you can expect it not to fail horribly? Feedback from both sides is essential.
    

If your audience doesn't acknowledge your basic explanations, it's not worth
going deeper in the subject. I.e. If you get no clue, go get them!

------
ubervero
I love interviewers' tips, upvoted. However, it's not clear to me how Kevin is
able to "ask a question early in the 5 minutes that is a complete tangent and
has little to do with their goal" to see if they "say no". As much as you want
to test the candidate's confidence, you have to ask a relevant question. Maybe
an example could help?

~~~
kevin_morrill
Here's a good example... one candidate chose to explain how residential
firefighting works. They got into explaining why water is really important. I
asked them about halon and they indulged a little bit. Then I asked them to
explain how halon works. And so on...

If they haven't shut me down by the 3rd question, it's a sign they're never
going to, and I stop distracting them.

For junior candidates, I usually don't even bother with this, because I am not
going to stop myself from hiring just because they fail this question. So it's
usually better to see if they can do well at just the core question.

------
mike_ivanov
> –anything

Let me show you my collection of cat whiskers, it's right there in my tinfoil
hat.

~~~
Deestan
That _would_ be a very useful reply. It would effectively communicate to me
whether you would make a good hire.

~~~
mike_ivanov
Are you running a cat whiskers collectors exchange? We definitely should talk.

------
dmor
And now on Forbes: [http://www.forbes.com/sites/susanadams/2012/10/04/a-big-
ques...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/susanadams/2012/10/04/a-big-question-
that-could-decide-any-job-interview/)

------
huhtenberg
Oh, this is indeed an awesome question. I would've appreciated to be asked it
if I were interviewing somewhere. There's so much I can tell about bacon :)

Seriously though, it's a very clever question. Thanks for sharing.

~~~
newsoundwave
What was the question? The site seems to be down and Google doesn't seem to
have a cached version yet.

~~~
bulltale
Paraphrased: Ask the applicant to explain _any_ topic for 5 minutes to the one
interviewing. Then the interviewer will draw a blank face. Talented applicants
will ask the interviewer if he understands, less talented applicants will just
continue their story.

------
brandnewlow
Along these lines, the CIA requires all applicants for foreign office
positions to fly to Washington and deliver a 5-minute briefing on a topic of
national security as part of their interview process.

------
msrpotus
So question about this question: do you think this can be trained (and if so,
would that training help with job performance) or it's just an inherent
characteristic?

~~~
raganwald
It can definitely be trained and practiced, so quite clearly it is going to
skew towards those that read blog posts about hiring.

~~~
kevin_morrill
The thing is if you're good at this, it translates into real work performance.
So I almost don't care if people have "cheated" and studied up on the
question. None of the people I've hired suddenly stopped communicating well on
the job after doing well on this question.

~~~
phuff
I think this is the part where you're doing some magical thinking backed up by
anecdotes. Have you done any actual experimental work on those who have failed
the question but that you've hired anyways? Have you then been able to
objectively measure how well they communicate? Your sample size seems pretty
small (a couple hundred) so my guess would be no. I frequently see this kind
of thinking about interview questions: "If somebody fails this problem this
way, then they'll perform poorly on the job in the following way." Unless you
actually have performed a study on this kind of thing, then you're probably
just guessing when you say those kinds of things, and you're showing a lot of
not particularly rigorous thinking about the relationship between the
interviewing process and on the job performance.

~~~
kevin_morrill
It's definitely a small sample size, but I have more data on this than any
other techniques I've seen out there.

I've been overruled once after no hiring a candidate. Low and behold the same
person ended up nearly getting fired 9 months later for the very same issues
that came up from this question. They struggled to answer even the simplest
questions with one sentence responses.

~~~
phuff
So, that's a sample size of 1. Not quite what we would call scientifically
rigorous ;). I'm not saying it's not a useful question. I'm just saying, you
jump to a whole lot of conclusions that are clearly not based on evidence in
your hiring process. That's fine, just be aware that your hiring process is
not doing what you're thinking or asserting it's doing.

------
torstesu
Split the pile of application in two halves. Throw one of the halves in the
trashcan. Hiring people with bad luck isn't good for business.

~~~
Deestan
While often given as a joke, this is effectively what many of these "best
interview question" posts really are:

Find any random old way to save time and effort in the interviewing process,
_then_ come up with some clever-sounding rationalization.

------
carmaa
From the article that has ceased to be:

\---

We have been doing a lot of interviewing at Referly lately, and my team asked
me to share an interview question we get the most mileage out of. I’ve been
doing this question for years and now have seen over two hundred different
answers now. It’s without a doubt my favorite interview question, because it
only take 5 minutes and it tells me a remarkable amount about candidates. Even
though it’s not a technical question per se, I still give it to every
programmer I interview.

Setting up the interview question

Here’s how I set up the question:

I want you to explain something to me. Pick any topic you want: a hobby you
have, a book you’ve read, a project you worked on–anything. You’ll have just 5
minutes to explain it. At the beginning of the 5 minutes you shouldn’t assume
anything about what I know, and at the end I should understand whatever is
most important this topic. During the 5 minutes, I might ask you some
questions, and you can ask me questions. Take as much time as you want to
think it through, and let me know when you want to start.

When I give this, I usually emphasize each of these points multiple times,
with a real stress on their goal: have me understand what’s most important
about the topic.

Empathy

As they start explaining, I make sure to have the most vacant look on my face
possible. I do not give any “uh huh” or “I see” kind of interjections that
underlie most conversations. A star candidate will pick up on this and ask if
I understand so far. On the job, these star candidates also are the same kind
of people that empathize with customers and think about it in all the work
they do once we hire them. Conversely, weaker candidates think that
presentation and communication are one in the same, and loose sight of their
audience. They end up being the hardest developers to work with just to
understand how they’re solving a problem, much less have a constructive
argument with them.

Explaining by analogy is a shortcut some of the best candidates use. One
example I heard while someone was teaching me the basics of poker was to take
advantage of the fact I had played backgammon even though I hadn’t played
poker. He talked about how in backgammon all the pieces on the board are
exposed information that both players can see, but in poker you have hidden
information. These type of explanations go a long way towards quickly
communicating an idea with all kinds of implications very succinctly.

Goal directed and organized

It is amazing how many candidates will not premeditate before diving into this
interview question. Once the trigger happy type candidates get going, they
don’t have any kind of bulleted list or outline in their head of what they
hope to get across. What’s most incredible about this is how accurately it
predicts disorganized and non-goal directed behavior on the job. I’ve been
over ruled a few times by my manager on a hiring decision, and question was a
harbinger of things to come. Conversely, the people that think it through and
have a few crystal clear points are amongst the best people I’ve worked with.
They are not just easy to communicate with, but get results in their work.

Leaders have the guts to say no

For senior positions, I will ask a question early in the 5 minutes that is a
complete tangent and has little to do with their goal. A star candidate will
politely refuse to go down this rat hole and insist that we stay on topic.
This seems unfair since an they’re in an interview and just doing what they’re
being asked. In reality though, the very same thing happens often in real
work. Even mangers do not innately know what is most important about a topic,
and it’s key to have confident people on the team that add focus to
conversations.

Stacking up

Usually only 1 or 2 out of every 10 candidates will do well on all these
points. That has held true after giving this interview question over two
hundred times.

I take a risk sharing this, because this question has been an amazing tool in
picking apart the best talent from rest. I ended up deciding this was worth
sharing because after years of telling people exactly what I am looking for in
the set up, weaker candidates still can’t help but get tripped up.

Want to experience it first hand? We have open positions right now :)

------
pilsetnieks
Wasn't it originally Bezos who requested interviewees to tell, elaborately,
about something he doesn't know?

------
mortdeus
Sooooo. Why did you just give away one of the best questions to ask at an
interview?

------
eli_gottlieb
I like it. It's pretty close to my favorite one: "What's your favorite
algorithm?"

------
RobSpectre
Totally stealing this.

------
manojlds
For those who can't see the page - the answer is 42.

------
jaequery
refer.ly just dropped the ball on this one.

