> What’s something you think the company could improve on?
Interviews are serious business and if I'm in one I want to be hired; so I won't ask that. But there is a certain temptation to ask that as a counter question the next time "Please describe your greatest weakness" comes up on the theory that it'd annoy the interviewer if they were expected to put up with the silliness they make candidates go through. The trials and tribulations of being disagreeable.
In all seriousness though, this is a bad question for exactly the same reason as "Please describe your greatest weakness" is a bad question. You're only testing the verbal intelligence of the person your talking to and they are, without a shadow of a doubt, going to give a diplomatic say-nothing answer if they have any sense in them.
> In all seriousness though, this is a bad question for exactly the same reason as "Please describe your greatest weakness" is a bad question. You're only testing the verbal intelligence of the person your talking to and they are, without a shadow of a doubt, going to give a diplomatic say-nothing answer if they have any sense in them
But why? Why would you not expect an answer like "our website is slow, and we are hoping you can help us with that"; or "we are thinking of improving collaboration between front-end and back-end engineers; and we were wondering what your experience has been in this area", etc?
Firstly because an HR would never know such details (assuming we're talking about first interview which is almost always with an HR), and secondly most people never want to admit any fault, not only their own but the company's.
I used to have a way of asking it where it was part of us figuring out if or how much I can help this team by working here. I’ve lost the knack, and also what makes me quit is feeling like a janitor, so coming in day one already thinking like the cleanup crew is a bad plan. So maybe it’s just as well I don’t talk that way anymore.
I have the same reflex because it was true for at least 80% of all my gigs (I am a contractor for good 8 years now, with a full-time career in several companies for 13-14 years before that).
I get what you are saying though, if you are talking like that then people instinctively will want to allocate you where there are fires.
Truthfully though, I gave up caring. Most companies are IMO a train wreck in progress anyway. Might as well score political / influence points by going in and measurably helping others.
Also, it shouldn't be a necessary question, as the company should already be making that clear to the candidate and how the the candidate will be an essential aspect of that endeavor.
Outside of FAANGs, especially in lower cost of living countries (e.g. here in Poland) and high demand jobs (e.g. mid+ software engineers) employers compete for employees most of the time. The reason is simple: nobody's offering above market rates so you have dozens or hundreds of same-y softwarehouse-y companies to choose from.
Most of my friends do not apply for jobs because they actually need them. They're looking around for something better while already working for someone.
It's a negative signal not to be able to critically assess how you're doing - both for an individual and a company.
The best teams know that being embarrassed about problems, or, at minimum, acknowledging some of the downsides of an intentional decision, is not the best way to solve them.
> Interviews are serious business and if I'm in one I want to be hired
I absolutely get that sentiment, but I think it's far from unconditionally true for most people who aren't desperate for a job. Do you really want to be hired into a company where you'll be unhappy and likely to fail? I'd much rather wash out at the interview stage than be fired or leave in disgust two months later (the company doesn't want this either - hiring a candidate is typically not profitable until many months on the job). At its most productive, interviewing is about collaborating on the most accurate prediction of whether the candidate will be happy and productive in the situation being hired for. Many companies and candidates are bad at this, but I think it's the ideal we should be striving for on both sides.
I rephrase the above question, just as I do when I'm the interviewer. For example, "Tell me about a change that's been made with the support of senior leadership to improve engineering culture. What were some of the things people were unhappy about that led to that change? What is and isn't working about the change?" If the answers I get are too diplomatic, then my suspicion is that changes aren't being made to improve culture, and therefore it's headed in a bad direction (without active curation in some form, culture goes downhill). If they give me an example that had flawless results, I say "Give me an example that didn't work so well." The more transparency and introspection I see, the more hope I have for where things are headed. Nothing is black and white here, but questions like this can separate companies if you're fortunate enough to get more than one offer.
When asked well, questions like this suggest that the candidate thinks / cares about the health of the org and is willing to politely, but directly, ask tough questions to make a difference. That's leadership. It can directly increase the odds of a better offer. When I'm the interviewer and you're a candidate for a role in management or you're an IC with the word "leader" on your resume, it works against you if you don't ask probing questions like the above, because I'm expecting you to do so on the job.
> "Tell me about a change that's been made with the support of senior leadership to improve engineering culture." [...] If the answers I get are too diplomatic, then my suspicion is that changes aren't being made to improve culture.
There is no "engineering culture" in a company. I don't know why everyone loves that word so much.
There is, with out doubt, engineering culture. Culture really means "what customs we use and how we work." Every single company has a set of customs for working. Sales customs, engineering customs, management customs, etc.
Engineering customs, or culture, dictate how the org approaches software development. Code reviews? How deep? Quality checks or not? Is quality encouraged?Level of collaboration between teams and teammates? is there a partnership with Product or does product dictate? How much and what gets written down? How are new solutions brought forward?
Does the company intentionally grow/weed-out these customs? That is engineering culture. You should work somewhere where their customs are things you can adopt. Else, you are not a culture fit.
I agree there is no company culture, unless it is really small. Culture of a team, of a department - sure, but not a company, especially if they have offices around the globe.
There could be company values promoted by CEO, but they are marketing bullshit created to look good for the shareholders.
The larger the group, the harder to have a homogenous culture, sure. But there can absolutely still be a company culture somewhere big. Let's grow the company up to the size of a nation state. Not everyone will behave and believe the same things. But there is most assuredly general commonalities, else there would be no difference between the US and Europe or Asia.
Bringing it back, while I have not worked at Amazon, I know they favor smaller teams that are self owned / directed. Yes, one team may suck (different subculture) and not mesh with another. But, in general, you can expect for some commonality. And it will be very different than a start up culture where everyone shares the root account and password to all dbs and env.
In my ~1k person company they have traditionally favored moving fast and validating code in prod. A new culture pushing higher quality to support larger, more demanding customers is being pushed from leadership and demanded by many developers and teams. The culture is changing. What other word could that be other than "culture"? Processes? Those are just codified customs (which is culture)
But that changes from team to team, and sometimes even from individuals to individuals. It’s rare the company (not faang level) that invests that much in engineering culture.
Of course it verifies from to team. Just like culture varies between any in-group. The culture of a larger group is kinda like the average of smaller inside-group customs.
A company that does not consciously cultivate culture will still have a culture, but it may be like driving a car with no hands on the wheel. At 5 companies so far, someone or group is ay least attempting to steer.
Interviews are serious business and if I'm in one I want to be hired; so I won't ask that. But there is a certain temptation to ask that as a counter question the next time "Please describe your greatest weakness" comes up on the theory that it'd annoy the interviewer if they were expected to put up with the silliness they make candidates go through. The trials and tribulations of being disagreeable.
In all seriousness though, this is a bad question for exactly the same reason as "Please describe your greatest weakness" is a bad question. You're only testing the verbal intelligence of the person your talking to and they are, without a shadow of a doubt, going to give a diplomatic say-nothing answer if they have any sense in them.