❯Interviews and Tribalism in the Era of Hype and Jargon

Sic transit gloria mundi

Interviews have become out of touch with reality. Is this a symptom of a malaise? We're neck-deep in the era of hype. Sound engineering principles have been substituted by ivory tower jargon and sensationalism. Talking about technology doesn't feel as sober and grounded in reality as it used to be.

Companies used to put effort in hiring and interviewing, you could get at least a distant sense of the officiality and seriousness of the process. Nowadays the overall experience leaves much to be desired, starting from hiring platforms themselves. But that deserves it's own article.

Reading between the lines

The assignment is often poorly conceived, and I don't mean difficult, that would be fair. It looks like it's been written hastily and without care, it has spelling mistakes (something you would be judged on), it misses parts that are emailed to you at the last minute. Not a great presentation for the people you're going to work with.

We're told by gurus that we must "Show your skills by asking questions" but when you do, you receive another question in exchange or a dismissal along the lines of "You should be able to deal with uncertainties". Asking good question can unveil that the interviewers aren't really prepared. You can sense in the air the interviewer has been caught off-guard and those are negative points for you, even though you imply an effective solution.

Technical issues aside, interactions have changed. There seem to be less effort put in engaging in conversations. Interviewers either ask questions about complex edge cases, leaving you wondering if they prompted those questions five minutes before, or ask questions that are so general, any answer would be as meaningless as the question itself. But as I mentioned "You should be able to deal with uncertainties" and they are "Looking for somebody that can translate complex cases into business language".

Also, you "Must have a bias for action" and "Be a self-starter". Please don't take these to the letter. Despite the slogan "We have a flat hierarchy", there definitely is a hierarchy and it's very easy to step on somebody's toes while self-starting. If they tell you that "You must be able to wear many hats", it probably means that they are understaffed and their infrastructure is a mess. You're going to have to ask around to gather bits and pieces of information and reconstruct how things came about, and there's always somebody taking that as an unpleasant intrusion.

What the interview is truly about

It's mostly an initiation ritual. On one-side, you are expected to recite algorithms or architectural patterns. The idea is to signal your adherence to the "sacred texts" and to the dialect of the tribe. You must be perceived as a low-risk hire, while at the same time communicate that you're useful and highly skilled (but that must show only at the right time and not too much!).

On the other side, if you rebel against the ritual, and communicate concisely without ivory tower rhetoric, you risk coming off as an outsider.

Make your own tribe

If you explain things simply, you make the job look unimpressive, clashing against the personality of people who's self worth is tied to the idea that their job must be unreachable by mere mortals.

If you simplify things to generalize, you leave out edge cases, and the interviewers are going to blast you on those.

By refusing to use trendy buzzwords you are subtly refusing to play the status game, that's a risky move. You communicate that you're not of the tribe, that you have an independent mindset. Should you be part of the tribe? You are the only one that can answer the question. I think you should find your tribe or even make your own, but in our fractured reality, full of distractions and gimmicks, it's not so easy.