I suppose it depends on the role, but IME as a hiring interviewer, that phase of the interview can important.

Do you truly not care to learn anything about the company you will spend the next 2,3,5,10 years with?

The interesting stuff that will make an employment unpleasant is not going to come out in an interview. That stuff comes out over time. To boot, I can think of quiet a few lies/half truths from interviewers. It is like dating, nobody says they are actually a lazy slob and the codebase is a POS on the first date.

For somebody who's unemployed, especially somebody who's been unemployed a while (very common in this market), the main thing you care about is getting employed again.

I imagine somebody who's currently employed wants to know that the company is better than the place they're currently at before they'd accept an offer. But sometimes "better" can be a very low bar to clear because their current company might be awful.

In other words, evaluating the candidate by their questions is just bias towards those who are already in good situations. Somebody being unemployed or employed in a toxic environment doesn't mean there's anything wrong with them especially in an economy where companies continue to lay people off at random.

> In other words, evaluating the candidate by their questions is just bias towards those who are already in good situations.

It sucks for the employee, but the unfortunate truth is that filtering for someone who's already in a good situation is actually a really good filter for the employer. As you say, it doesn't necessarily mean there's something wrong with them, but being unable to find a job for an extended period of time—to the point where you'll look for anything and not try to filter workplaces at all—is correlated with undesirable traits. Meanwhile, being steadily employed in a chaotic market and asking questions that show you're not desperate and are evaluating me as a hiring manager are both correlated with positive traits.

Again—not that any specific candidate is problematic or good because of those situations, but you will tend towards better hires overall if you watch those cues.

The hiring process sucks and it sucks that this method of filtering works, but it does work.

> The hiring process sucks and it sucks that this method of filtering works, but it does work.

How do you know this? (That this is not just sampling error, survivor bias, and/or confirmation bias)

I speculate that a good hire is almost random. Context matters as well. I worked with someone that was horrible, to later find out they were the other dev that I was going to work with later on a contract job. The different environment was night and day.

That being said, I do think the signal of a horrible hire can more often than not be detected during an interview. Otherwise, IMO, there is too much noise that it is close to random.

This filter works because people that are really good at what they do naturally tend to actually care about the surrounding tools/processes involved. Someone that has no opinions at all about those tools/processes is just showing up, and people that are just showing up are not usually as good as people that are passionate about the work.

That said.. it is stupid/insulting/weird to interview assembly-line workers as if you're looking for skilled artisans. Most companies/interviewers completely lack the self-awareness and ability to reflect on which category of worker they actually need/want, and may not even realize there are 2 categories.

I take you are referring to a different filter. I was responding to:

> "the unfortunate truth is that filtering for someone who's already in a good situation is actually a really good filter "

Be what it may, the "caring about tools/process" filter I also think is fraught with issues. (1) candidate might have already been described what the tools/processes are several times already. Perhaps even up front in the job description. (2) I've learned that tools and processes need to be evolved, gently suggested. It does not go well to say, yeah, drop scrum, do fewer CRs and only when important, add an auto-formatter and all these things. Secondarily to that, those things are not necessarily that important. It is work about the work there, better often to just do the thing then to spend too much optimizing the effort to do the thing. (3) a candidate should be asked what they would change in tools and process. Volunteering that can show a lack of "business focus". (4) any issues in tooling/process might be pitched as opportunities for impact that the candidate could have. In reality those things get political and it might not be a position that is empowered to really change much. So why deep dive into that during an interview - the person is being hired to do a thing, not to just do tooling (unless it is a tools efficiency job of course!)

At the same time, I would agree that someone with no opinion likely has no breadth in the process aspect of development. Yet, does that matter? It is more important for a team to get along than to try to 10x itself by going full bore on process efficiency. The latter is a myth. Focusing on that myth likely is going to be endless meetings/discussion about process and not business problems.

What is more, tools and process are context dependent. What works at a big shop (eg: FB, amazon), or the last shop - might not work at all at the next shop.

I'll emphasize as well that tools/process are best evolved with focus on areas of greatest need. That is a learning and discovery process. Getting a clear signal during an interview of whether someone understands that, or have just followed the scrum guide without much thought could be a real challenge. Asking someone even if they follow the scrim guide is nebulous, many have not read it, they might say they have but clearly have not. Yet more, the saying of "if you're still following the scrum guide a year later, your process is not agile"

Ergo, I suspect the "cares about tools and processes" will be a noisy filter. Caring too much creates discord on a team and ultimately is distracting. Sussing out willful indifference vs indifference due to business focus (eg: "I really don't care, just point me at the business problems and the rest is bullshit that I'lljust have to suffer through"), vs just shows up. I believe differentisting that alone is a big challenge (and potentially susceptible to a variety of biases). Yet more, is that the most important thing to focus on during an interview, is that really a valuable filter? I'm not sure. Sometimes having a few people not care is good, less bikeshedding.

> For somebody who's unemployed, especially somebody who's been unemployed a while (very common in this market), the main thing you care about is getting employed again.

Rather than seeing this phase of an interview as a chance to "conform even harder" and show smiling engagement in what is already an unfair / coercive farce, try thinking of this as an opportunity to exercise your curiosity.

I mean sure you don't really care, you just need a job. But it's possible to be curious about lots of things you don't really care about. Look at that bird, I wonder where it's flying from/to. Hey it's a car parked on the street, I wonder how many people had sex in the back. Look it's a manager at a company, I wonder how they handle product ideas in that company. Being curious is easy, usually it hurts nothing, and it's a kind of muscle that benefits from flexing. Besides, especially if you've got a long drive or a long interview.. well you're stuck with it, and what else are you going to do.

Yes, your current situation does make a difference in what is important to you and which questions you have. And it also influences the balance at the interviewing table. I can imagine that it is frustrating to feel being evaluated against candidates who have the luxery of saying ‘no’ to a new job and can think critically if they want to work at the new place. Sometimes you have more freedom to say ‘no’ then you think. It can make a difference between night and day.

My impression has always been that very little information given in either direction in an interview is relevant to the next year, let alone the next ten.

FWIW at the big tech companies I’ve worked at, that part of the interview does not have any impact on hiring decisions.

In theory it’s irrelevant in practice although companies try to make the process quantitative it is ultimately qualitative because it’s a human rating on a qualitative rubric. The impression you leave on the interviewer always makes a difference in how they represent you in their feedback and panels.

It’s like in school every TA uses the same rubric yet they all grade differently.

If you don't have any interest why do you want to work at that organization? You just want a check? That's not a good way to spend half your waking hours during the work week.

If you aren't already wealthy, you're probably working because "you just want a check". Even if the job you want is to own your own company, you still have to work until you have enough savings. This is how the world has always worked for most of the population in every human society that has ever existed.

If your skills are in demand you can get the check from many employers.

That said, if you want to run a business, and you don't like/want to do anything else, then you're kind of stuck. Unfortunately not wanting to do the job you want to get isn't generally what makes you a great hire but wanting to do a different job without having any skills also doesn't make you a great hire. Owning your own company is easy, go register it and you own it. Getting a check out of that is a little harder.

States can and do subsidize new businesses. It's generally in everyone's interest to actively foster competition.

Because the answers are likely not reliable anyways. Catfishing is the term.

Yeah. When I’m interviewing folks at my current company, and the Q&A portion begins, I tell them they can ask whatever they want or just reclaim the time; my notes are sealed. More interviewers should operate like that.

You can tell them that, but I don't think I'd believe it as a candidate. I'll assume that every interaction I have with you up until an offer is extended is going to influence your perception of me, whether you're taking notes or not.

I suspect most don’t believe it, and in general it’s wise to remain suspicious. But I’ll continue to reassure nonetheless.