> although in the interview I might politely ask (after solving the problem) what relevance it has to the job, just to make the point.
I highly advise you don't do this, because I don't consider it polite. Everyone tries to be objective in final review, so don't jab them with something snarky they'll remember about you while discussing your performance.
It's an exercise, it's artificial. Can you convert an abstract idea into code. Yes there are bad questions and bad interviewers, that doesn't mean wanting to see you write code is bad. You don't want Microsoft's new "real world, from the job" style questions [1] because I've had a few of those and they're misguided. Way too much internal domain knowledge is missing and I spend too long trying to get it out of them.
That said, DP in a phone screen for devops is a little tough.
I wouldn't ask it snarkily. I've been hired for jobs before and then asked to work on stuff that, while related, was nowhere in the job description. Got hired to do Java/C++ development, was pushed into being part-time sysadmin for our primary test environment because my team had spare capacity and our dev-ops team didn't. There were times I went 6 months without touching a line of Java or C++. Another guy I worked with said he got hired for real-time c development and then got pushed into Java development shortly after arriving.
Some managers embrace the notion that all software engineers are basically the same and you can shuffle them around outside their area of expertise and then complain when efficiency goes down. Now granted there are probably more strategic ways to ask about that then the direct method I originally posted, but if I'm interviewing with one of such managers, I want to know.
Fair enough; phrase it "What would my day-to-day work look like?" "What percentage of time coding/designing/testing/meetings?" The current interview process could be better but right now these coding questions are just a proxy for ability/aptitude.
I just want you to have the best shot at this job. Be as critical about the process as you want after you get it.
There's literally no way to not ask that snarkily. Don't do it.
Also, it reeks of "justice driven opinion having" which is scary beyond reason for an employer, e.g. "They didn't ask for this feature the right way so I'm not going to deliver it/deliver it in a way that makes them unhappy."
I know it's the internet, but you seem to projecting a certain tone onto my statements that wouldn't be there. I don't know where you got "justice driven opinion having" from, it's mission-driven opinion having. They need to know I can code my way out of a shoe-box, and in return I need to know they can lead a team of engineers through a Chuck-E-Cheese ball pit.
Someone who gets defensive about an honest, neutral-tone question about their interview process is likely going to be defensive about more important decisions, which means they take feedback poorly and are likely a poor leader. This is assuming I'm talking to a hiring manager and not an HR rep.
I don't apply to missions I'm not willing to work overtime for. If I'm going to make sacrifices for whatever my employment does, I require that my leadership shares my commitment and is fundamentally competent such that they don't needlessly waste my sacrifices. In any interview I'll be probing for that as respectfully as I can, just as they'll be probing me for technical aptitude and whatever character profile they're looking for.
But that's not what you're accomplishing by asking that question, you're taking a moral position beyond your role on a topic you're not an expert in. What you're demonstrating is your lack of perspective and a hubris that can poison a team, turning it into a snake put where people "neutrally" question every decision.
The mere fact that you think you can neutrally ask a question like that is a red flag.
Or I'm just politely asking for confirmation of what I'm interviewing for, as I'm participating in said interview. You sound like that proverbial manager who refused to hire someone because at the lunch interview the candidate put salt on his fries before trying them, and the hiring manager extrapolated that to mean he doesn't properly analyze situations before acting.
As for "role" and "expert", you seem to think that in an interview my job is to be subordinate. Quite the contrary, at present I'm not unemployed and my bills are paid. I'm looking for an upgrade, not a necessity. So in an interview I'm still deciding if the company is worthy of my subordination/my making them more money. I may not be leadership, but I can pick which leader to support. Leaders who are oversensitive to basic, polite questioning during a job interview clearly don't want/need help that badly.
Now once a subordinate, obviously there are times/places for questions and times/places when they are not helpful. But if you consider questioning decisions in general "poison" for your team, and you fear your team turning into a "snake pit" if someone starts asking questions, then that points to a severe lack of trust and/or poor communication between you and your subordinates. Either of which would turn me away even if you offered to double my salary.
It's not honest. You're not asking the question to better understand the situation, you're asking the question to make a rhetorical point. You're not expressing your opinion, you're hiding your opinion, and setting up a "trap" for the employer to possibly fall into if they answer "incorrectly". You think you know better.
Asking questions doesn't create a snake pit, not being straightforward with your opinions does. Asking leading questions that force people to not trust your motivations will certainly create a toxic work environment.
Related, I don't think you actually believe I was genuinely putting forward the idea that you shouldn't ask questions in your interview. I have some not-great theories about why you chose to do that, but this probably isn't worth the time it'd take to figure it out with you...
It is honest, it's just not 100% blunt. I'm saying a professional version of "Now that I've proven my resume isn't a complete lie, you know these problems are irrelevant and non-representative, right?" and gauging their reaction with a plausible out that I was just confirming basic information if I need it. I can even throw in that anecdote about my previous job where I was hired for one thing and pushed into another. Hell if there's another engineer in the room we might even bond over it. If I was 100% blunt I'd be guilty of the very snark you say is impossible not to have and likely get less information about them thanks to pushing too hard. I have to pass their "is he completely full of shit?" test, why shouldn't they have to pass mine? Ideally we both pass our respective tests and both sides become much less guarded as the interview goes on.
As for "knowing better", in the past I occasionally have known better than some of my bosses, as born out in money lost (once to the tune of millions of dollars) doing it their way until they (miraculously and of their own accord, of course) came around to doing it the way some of my co-workers and I had been promoting. Was a minority of cases, but often enough that I don't assume competence or honesty from strange managers without at least some indirect verification.
As for not asking any questions in interviews, I didn't mean to insinuate you meant that exactly. But from your statements it appears you would have issues with non-technical non-job-specific questions, because I'm an engineer and such questions would be "taking a moral position beyond your role on a topic you're not an expert in.". Which to me sounds like "Engineers shouldn't judge businesses beyond their immediate role because they don't have business degrees". To which I'd say I don't need to be an "expert" to judge interviewing techniques any more than I need to be a licensed auto-mechanic to change my oil and brake pads. Likewise I've learned the hard way to examine a business's financial incentives/disincentives, business model and direct competition more closely than the job descriptions, because those factors will determine the nature of the job I'm applying for a lot more than any given mission statement or brief description in an interview. So I may ask questions about those topics as well, despite being "beyond my role".
Since you value direct honesty about intentions: this conversation is beneficial to me in forcing me to explain/defend these perspectives in greater detail than I usually have the opportunity/need to. So for whatever it's worth I thank you for that. It's clear we both come from very different experiences in approaching this scenario, and I'm sure your experience bears out your arguments just as mine does my arguments. I doubt we'll come to an agreement here, but part of me wonders how I'd do in an interview with you if I wasn't aware it was you and you weren't aware it was me, from this thread. Probably never going to find out, but would be interesting.
I can't honestly said I read this. The fact that you're writing this much to try and justify something so simple and unimportant should be a red flag to you.
Interviews go both ways. If you have a problem simply saying something like "nah, these are just screening problems, it's hard to come up with good ones" then it sounds like there's deeper problems here. Like, the company having issues recognizing even obvious flaws in its own processes.
The problem with tech interviews is that it’s super rare to find the right combination of elite technical skills and emotional intelligence required to properly assess a candidate. Those people are usually busy.
What you end up with is someone who is either a mid-level engineer and almost totally green to recruiting or an HR drone with zero technical skills who is liable to believe a bunch of bullshit. Both tend to ask stupid interview questions they learned from a book because they’re out of their depth in some way.
This is not a situation unique to software either; it affects nearly every professional specialization (especially ones where the pay gap between an HR role and a functional role is as big as it is in tech). You’re right, it makes zero sense to put your interviewer on the defensive — being likable is almost always more important than being good.
It is all about phrasing. If you ask it like "I thought this was a X position, doing Y isn't something I expected to be related. I can do it, but I was hoping you could clarify if the expectation was the ability to do X, Y, or both?" you will likely have a far better outcome than if you come off as challenging them.
I highly advise you don't do this, because I don't consider it polite. Everyone tries to be objective in final review, so don't jab them with something snarky they'll remember about you while discussing your performance.
It's an exercise, it's artificial. Can you convert an abstract idea into code. Yes there are bad questions and bad interviewers, that doesn't mean wanting to see you write code is bad. You don't want Microsoft's new "real world, from the job" style questions [1] because I've had a few of those and they're misguided. Way too much internal domain knowledge is missing and I spend too long trying to get it out of them.
That said, DP in a phone screen for devops is a little tough.
[1] https://www.businessinsider.com/microsoft-new-developer-inte...