Speaking from my experience looking for internships during school and for jobs after graduating, the questions you ask your interviewer are really important. Sure, people tell you that it's important because you want to look interested or like you've given the company thought, but more than that, as a person who's new to the workforce, it's important for you to learn about what's out there and what to expect.
Answers to questions about work/life balance like, "What time do people usually come in and leave?", "Do coworkers hang out outside of work?", etc. differ greatly between companies.
For internships, knowing the scope of your internship and the level of responsibility is a must.
Questions about workflow are also crucial. Where do new ideas for products come from? If I have an idea what's the process for getting it implemented?
And if you can't think of anything else, just ask what they think you should know about the company. Maybe you don't know what you don't know!
You shouldn't feel like you're walking a fine line between looking disinterested for not asking questions and looking entitled for asking them. Even if you bombed the interview (and who hasn't), asking questions about the company will give you more information for comparison at the companies whose interviews you succeed at. And if you have multiple rounds of interviews, feel free to ask the same question to multiple people to get differing opinions.
The company you go to is going to be part of your life for a long time, educate yourself about work environments just like you educate yourself about your field.
At least at MSFT, we were not allowed to answer this question. These rates can also be deceptive at face value, as you really want to know the breakdown between good attrition (fired a poor performer) and bad attrition (somebody they wanted to keep left).
Zero is also not a good answer, as it means that either they never fire anybody -- and you get to work alongside non-performers who make the same money as you -- or they fail to encourage significant enough personal growth that people occasionally outgrow their position faster than the company can make them a new one for them. Both are very, very bad situations. Well, unless you're just trying to cash a check.
"Interviewing the interviewer" is an important strategy to help understand what you're getting into and helping to make sure the whole process remains two-way. But it's a fine line between making an assessment and appearing selfish. Many of OP's questions are problematic...
“How many clients has the company added in the past year?”
I would prefer trying to assess growth rates outside the interview. In many cases, you should be able to get an idea some other way. This question shows lack of initiative. And, in many cases, the interviewer may not even be permitted to answer it.
“What has the employee turnover rate been over the past 24 months?”
Too much focus on the negative. You don't like when they ask, "Why did you only stay with Company X for 3 months?" They'll feel the same way.
“What’s the company’s policy on work/life balance?”
You might as well say, "I intend to deliver 40 hours of my time for 40 hours of pay. If you need extra help, ask someone else. Big turnoff.
“What kind of tools are provided to help me do my job?”
Better: "What kinds of things do you need me to do to help the company achieve its goals.
“In the first 60 to 90 days, what’s my first priority?”
Actually, this is a great question. It can paint a good picture of your life and shows that you're ready to get to work.
“Are employees required to sign a non-compete contract?”
By asking this, you are identifying yourself as a problem. If someone asked me this question, the first thing I would think would be, "What is he up to and what is my risk?"
For technology companies, just assume that the answer to this question is "Yes" and sign it.
When interviewing someone else, I appreciate good questions. They show interest and possibility. But I get a bit concerned when too many questions are of the variety of "What's in it for me?"
I think it's always a better idea to present yourself with President Kennedy's attitude: "Ask not what the company can do for you, ask what you can do for the company." Find a way to present yourself that way while still learning everything you need to know.
The point of the article is to counter the general imbalance in the company/interviewee relationship by making sure the interviewee interviews the company back.
Your rebuttal however feels very much from the company's perspective.
If the company squirms or is concerned because they're asked questions like this, I think it's actually worrying. Companies will ask why you stayed at a company for a short period of time. Asking about tools is a good way to evaluate how easy it would be to get things done: if a company won't spend an extra $2k on a new computer of your choice, it's not a good sign. Asking about work/life balance is the same thing: you won't get a definite answer but you should get a glimpse of if you'll be asked to travel across the country at the last minute on your daughter's birthday or not.
In the end, you won't get completely truthful answers but the way they are answered will give you hints. (and to be fair, interviewees also embellish their answers)
Asking "what's in it for me?" seems a fair question. Generally, the feeling is that the risk is on the company's part, but as an employee you might be wasting your time, your opportunities and later you'll have to explain why you worked for only three months at a company.
> For technology companies, just assume that the answer to this question is "Yes" and sign it.
No no no no... I agree with the general tone of your post Edward, but strongly disagree with this. Anyone working in a field they have any possibility of working in again should never sign something that will complicate that. And the same with ownership of IP developed on personal time.
Once a company has made the decision to hire you they are invested in you. If you can't get them to bend on amending the contract don't sign it. Starting your own company is stressful enough without the possibility for an ex-employer to take legal action. Add that to the fact that people are much less likely to start a business in a field totally unrelated to what they currently do, and you have something that is entrepreneurial suicide.
By far, limiting the IP clause is most important thing to get while you're in the negotiation stage. HR and legal will move mountains to get a key hire made, but once you're in, all the power is in their hands.
I recommend asking to exclude any ideas developed on personal time OR not formally documented or manifested in specs or code.
You don't want to be worried that if you have a conversation with a colleague about some problem which sparks an idea for a product that just the vague idea becomes company property.
Any of your ethereal ideas that your employer doesn't execute on should never be at risk of getting claimed later if you decide to do something with them. Get that in writing before you start.
A non-compete is reasonable but it should also have a reasonable term... e.g. while employed, and perhaps for a period of 2 years after leaving.
That said, overly restrictive non-competes tend to be unenforceable, but I agree you don't want the hassle of a legal fight even if you ultimately prevail.
It also depends on the job. For a high-level executive position with a multi-million dollar golden parachute, sure a one or two year NCA is reasonable. For example, iirc Mark Hurd had to wait a year for NCA to expire before going to work at Oracle after leaving HP.
But for a professional developer/engineer position for with minimum severance it's completely unreasonable. It's like asking a lawyer to not practice law for a year after leaving a firm, or a doctor not to practice medicine for two years after leaving a partnership. That's your bread & butter, how you feed your children, and the idea of asking someone in that situation not to ply their hard-earned skills in their trade is nuts.
The only exception would be, and I personally agreed to this at my first job after graduating from college, is if the company provided an extensive training program that taught you all the skills you know. My first company provided three months all-day classroom/lab training while paying us full wages, then an additional three months of mixed OTJ and classroom/training. I was Econ grad and they taught us app development, and then asked us to sign a 1-year NCA that started on the date our training officially ended. They just wanted to make sure they didn't make a huge investment training people (and paying them full salary during training) who would then jump over to a competitor right afterwards, which was totally reasonable.
Later, another company asked me to sign an NCA that would go into effect my last day of work with them, but offered no training, professional development, or year-long severance. I and another new developer sat down with the CEO and explained the above, and she cancelled the whole program after realizing our side of it, which was very cool of her.
So yeah, it depends on the situation, type of employee, etc.
The last one of those I was asked to sign was laughably broad (the specific example I asked, was "What if I wrote a children's book" and yes, that would be covered). I asked to take it to my lawyer to review, and they forgot to ever ask for it again.
2 years?! 1 is excessive in my view. Now, if I was paid handsomely for those 2 years, fine. But to not pay me and say I can't go work at other competitors - that's too much to ask for 2 years. I've had a couple 6 month non-competes - that's liveable. 1 year - I'd probably do it. 2 years? I doubt I'd sign.
As a call centre drone I was required to sign a non-compete for Nokia saying that I wouldn't work for any other mobile phone manufacturer for a period of three years.
In practice I no one cared what their phone goons did after they left, but I suspect it was applied to everyone they hired, either directly or through outsourcing (like I was).
In fact, after the outsourcer lost the contract several of the people I worked with immediately went to do phone support for Samsung or Motorola (all three were in the same building).
>> You might as well say, "I intend to deliver 40 hours of my time for 40 hours of pay. If you need extra help, ask someone else. Big turnoff.
What's wrong with that? If I'm being hired on with a salary, that's my expectation. They can ask me to work extra, but they can also pay me to do that.
>What's wrong with that? If I'm being hired on with a salary, that's my expectation. They can ask me to work extra, but they can also pay me to do that.
I've been under the assumption that by going on salary, you pretty much forfeit your right to get paid more(forget bonuses for a moment) if you work more hours. Conversely, you will still get paid for 40 hours of work even if the week is slow and you only really needed to do, say, 36.
Yes but there's a difference between occasional extra work to hit a tight deadline and routine 60 hour weeks. You will want to know what you're getting into.
There's no absolute good or bad when it comes to work expectations.
Investment bankers work 60+ hrs/wk and make $200K a year and get massive bonuses. Most of them are mercenaries who will go wherever they can get the best comp, because what they're selling is the opportunity for the bank to generate profit from their ideas/network whatever. (Please try to read the previous without getting wound around the axle about financiers moral value.)
So, to the extent that you view yourself in the business of "selling value I create," then a few things follow... 1) you'll want highly measurable criteria for success, 2) you'll want comp that is highly meritocratic, and 3) and hours worked don't matter much at all.
Clearly, this post was geared to people who view themselves as being in the business of selling their time, not their value.
Yeah, and there have been numerous studies showing that extended work weeks reduce productivity overall as well. I don't mind putting in an extra few hours to get a new feature out the door; I'm not going to work 60 hour weeks without additional compensation.
Your objection to these questions is fair, but what suggestions would you offer for finding this kind of information?
I ask because these questions all would have thrown up a red flag at my previous company, where within 2 months I found myself trying to run a very specific old version of Eclipse (so they wouldn't have to pay for the non-free version of a plugin) on a 10 year old desktop (with a keyboard and mouse I bought myself), on completely unreasonable schedules, embarrassed to leave before 10pm, with no programmers left that I could ask any questions, and at least mildly concerned about whether the non-compete agreement would prevent me from taking another job in Japan.
Being terrible at interviews as I am, I failed to ask enough questions for fear of leaving the kind of bad impression you describe, since I saw myself as having few alternatives as a fresh grad in a bad economy, and convinced myself that the offer was a pretty good deal. There must be a way to at least get some indication that a company isn't going to make me beg for scraps without coming off as unhireable.
I think this review is very valuable. The key is to always look at it from the other persons point of view as well. I like when an interviewee asks questions. But there needs to be forethought and finnesse in the interaction. Your questions are very telling of you, as are the questions the interviewer asks you, which can tell you a lot about them. So, be sure to evaluate what your questions are "telling" this potential employer about you. I'd rather get an offer an decline than not get an offer at all. You can always find out quite a bit about companies just by googling them.
I enjoy most of your comments on HN but I find this one extremely biased and giving advice which benefits the advisor rather than the advisee.
> You don't like when they ask, "Why did you only stay with Company X for 3 months?" They'll feel the same way.
Actually I do like it when they ask. It gives me a chance to explain my position. Heaven forbid somebody's feelings get hurt.
> This question shows lack of initiative
How does a question about the company's business show lack of initiative? It shows the candidate is at least thinking about the bigger picture and future.
> just assume that the answer to this question is "Yes" and sign it.
Honestly, I cannot believe you are saying this seriously. Never, never, never just sign something.
>Ask not what the company can do for you, ask what you can do for the company.
When you are interviewing someone, are you really following your own advice and thinking "What can I do for this candidate?" while ignoring your own company? I sincerely doubt it. The whole reason you are looking to hire is to get a ROI on the person.
I say all these as someone who has asked tough questions of my interview, been hired and then been told "we hired you because we liked the questions you asked of us during the interview."
I don't know why your comment was downvoted. This is good advice.
The candidate has the most power in the hiring process between the moment they have received an offer and before they have given a decision. The company at that point has invested a lot of time and money into the process and you are their number 1 choice.
This would be the best time to ask any "iffy" questions or to push back on any of the points they brought up which you had issues with.
> Are employees required to sign a non-compete contract?
Standard answer is Yes, which is fair because it protects the company from you hanging around for a month and then moving straight to their competitors. Non-compete prevents that by requiring a cooling off period of (typically) two years.
A more interesting question is if you are allowed to work on your own projects. It seems like an obvious question, but in some countries it is not. For example, EA (Electronic Arts) is in Canada and they explicitly told me at the interview that everything that I ever code while employed with them would belong to EA. And then added that I shouldn't really have time for personal projects if I am to work for EA diligently... at which point I collected my dropped jaw from the floor and left.
I always figured that would be unfair to ask - they might feel they have to lie to keep their job, or they might not want it to get back to other employees.
I like to ask what they like most about their work, which gives them a chance to talk about their job, the company, others in the company (usually), and their role.
'they might feel they have to lie to keep their job'
Because that's not a warning sign at all! boggles
Most people of course answer this question in the same way an interviewee does when asked 'Why did you leave your last position?'. Nobody will ever answer 'that jerk across the hall, I can't STAND that guy'. They will answer something that gives some insight into the company culture. I don't think it's a coincidence, for instance, that easily half the people at Google I've put this question to have answered something along the lines of 'management chaos/confusion', 'the tendency for two internal projects to be competing with each other without even knowing about it', etc.
I should have added the followup to my first question is what they like most. Both can be very informative, of course, and following up with that helps put them at ease for the rest of the interview, since many interviewers aren't expecting a question like this one. But it's really worth it. An interview isn't just to answer 'will you hire me', it also must answer 'will I enjoy working here'. The second is much more important to me.
It's a warning sign, but I doubt interviewers would give honest negative answers unless they were about to leave. I think it also puts them on guard. Asking what they like tells you not just what they do like, but can also tell you what they don't like, by omission.
As an interviewer, I have never had a problem answering this question honestly. Anyone who shows discomfort with the question would give me a bad feeling about the company I was interviewing.
It's perfectly normal to have things about your job you don't like. What's so bad about talking about them?
What if I (the interviewee) happens to know your boss, and your boss doesn't know you have issues with the work? That's why as an interviewer I'd tend to be circumspect.
I have no problem with anything I say during the course of conducting an interview getting back to any of (a) my manager, (b) HR, (c) Legal. None!
What's all this fear about the boss knowing you have issues with the job? Everyone, repeat, everyone has some issue, however minor, with a job. Owners, managers, etc. already know this. It's not something to hide unless you're working in a really sucky place that can't handle any level of dissent. And in that case you should probably think seriously about leaving (unless you like that kind of thing).
Wanna know what my answer is to most candidates who ask me about something I don't like about my job? The bureaucracy. We are in a highly regulated industry and it can take an annoying amount of time and paperwork to complete some tasks and it gets tedious and frustrating at times. There, I said it. Believe me when I say that the people I work for are well aware of this problem.
As others pointed out, you're likely not to get a honest answer and you'll probably won't know it. The HR people are likely trained in the art of fake smiles. How about this question instead:
"What would you like to change for better in your company ?" Followed by "Do you have any ideas how to achieve that ?"
This shouldn't sound scary as max(sorted(issues, key=severity)). It allows the interviewer to be honest and mention the worst thing. Be suspicious if they say "I wish we had a nice mountain view." ;-). And nothing like "I would like to earn 10x more", that's essentially a "three wishes" kind of response, too easy.
When you interview with multiple people at one company, and they all answer that question the same way, does that indicate to you a canned response, or a credibility to the quoted reason?
As an interviewer, I've usually made up my mind by the time I let the candidate ask questions. My "tell" in interviews is that I tend to forget to give people I've rejected a chance to ask me questions. So, I'm not looking for the candidate to show deep insight with just the right set of questions
But, asking a bunch of overly aggressive questions will earn a candidate a "might not play well with others" footnote on my evaluation. The questions in the article are great. Getting confrontational when you're supposed to be making a good impression is a bit of a warning flag.
My advice: Use your questions to make sure you understand what kind of work you'll be doing. Use them to understand the team dynamic. Carefully use them to understand if the company has a reasonable business plan. Don't be a jerk and ask a lot of confrontational or trick questions.
>But, asking a bunch of overly aggressive questions will earn a candidate a "might not play well with others" footnote on my evaluation. The questions in the article are great. Getting confrontational when you're supposed to be making a good impression is a bit of a warning flag.
Can you give examples of these kinds of questions that you've been asked in the past? I'm imagining a question like "You think you can kick my ass in arm-wrestling?" to be one but I'm sure you have different thoughts on it :)
My favorite one was the guy who looked up my name on a list of resumes he had printed out from LinkedIn or something and asked me why I was in such and such a role when I was clearly more suited for another role based on my experience. First of all, he was wrong, and second, creepy!
Just in general, be respectful. If you disagree with an answer, ask a clarifying question or move on. Don't tell me in the middle of an interview that out whole approach is wrong, especially when it's on a fairly subjective matter. We're doing the interview to learn about each other, not to convince each other about development philosophies. If you don't understand that there's a time and a place for disagreement, it's a warning sign to me (not saying disagreement is bad, but there are times when it's much more appropriate than others).
A lot of interview advice articles mention asking questions as a way of impressing the interviewers. I see that as a side benefit, and one that you earn only if you approach it the right way.
Although it may not appear so to folks straight out of college or who have been unemployed for a while, the goal of the interview is not to find a job. The goal is to find a job that's right for you. The job will dominate your life. You'll spend more time there than on any other single activity except sleeping. You'll time your friends, your family, your vacations around this job. For something that's that big a deal, you want to know what you're getting into.
So going in with a set of things you want to know about the environment is good; use those things to start conversations. Asking a canned list of questions and pausing for the response won't do much, even if it's your own personalized canned list. Listen to the responses. Ask follow-up questions. Know what you value, and respectfully try to find out if they value the same things. Bring up your curiosity at any appropriate place during the interview; you don't have to wait until the end.
That curiosity, that commitment to finding the right environment is what will impress interviewers, not the mere act of asking questions.
When interviewing candidates I am always very careful to give an accurate account of what I feel the expected work life balance is - I certainly wouldn't regard it, as one commenter does, as a "red flag" if someone asked about it.
I've only been on the other side of this, but I feel like there are times I've hurt myself as a candidate with the work/life question. Some employers are looking for (and paying for) people who will put the job above everything else. With them, "work/life balance" might be a dirty word. In hindsight, I would phrase the question more like, "what kind of schedule would a successful [person in this job] at your company keep?"
On the other hand, unless you really don't care about having a life outside of work, it's probably better to get rejected by the kind of companies who will reject you for asking the question.
One of my favorites: "What was the last unit test you wrote, and what did it test and why?"
If you just ask a question about whether they do unit testing, you'll get a suitably vague and chirpy response, but specifics will normally get you a clearer answer - usually starting with a few seconds of embarrassed shuffling in their seat while they wrack their brains :>
The other trick, since I've just been on the interview circuit and used this one a bit: use previous companies brain teasers/language puzzles (eg. worst feature or wart of language X) against the current one.
If they don't do any language puzzles or ask you hard questions, then either a) run screaming or b) use that as an excuse to ask a hard language question.
As an interviewer this gives me absolutely no useful information! The questions I ask have to be relevant to your ability to do the job. Brain teasers and opinions about languages aren't.
Now, if you have, e.g., C++ and Python on your resume and I ask you to compare how easy/difficult it is to do a certain operation using either language, that can give me insight into your experience using them. Just asking what your most/least favorite language feature is doesn't.
ps,
why would you ask an interviewer a language question?
If you're looking for a senior developer with 5-10 years experience in a language it's a useful gauge of experience and whether they think about the language that they work in , particularly if it's something that might bite you. eg. What does the following do in Python 2:
And you ask interviewers language questions to find out the same thing - namely, whether they really know what they're doing. I'd rather do interesting work, and not get stuck explaining list comprehensions to a bunch of people.
Think of your interview as a conversation, rather than an inquisition.
I think there's a danger that a candidate might appear confrontational if they bombard the interviewer / interviewers with a list of questions that they're unprepared for.
The goal of the interview is to find out if the candidate is a good fit. Focus on that (common) goal - ask questions to that help you assess the problem in a way that's as pragmatic as possible. After all, it's in both of your interests to find out whether an appointment is likely to realistically work.
“Are employees required to sign a non-compete contract?”
Really? Why do you need to ask this question (as opposed to just looking at the contract)? Asking this at the interview stage only makes it look like you are interested in going somewhere else (BEFORE) you even have this job...
OT: Dickbar popping around the place meant that I spent 5 minutes trying to get adblock to work on the cdn and then gave up, don't know why I stayed so long. Don't know what's happened to adblock either ...
Answers to questions about work/life balance like, "What time do people usually come in and leave?", "Do coworkers hang out outside of work?", etc. differ greatly between companies.
For internships, knowing the scope of your internship and the level of responsibility is a must.
Questions about workflow are also crucial. Where do new ideas for products come from? If I have an idea what's the process for getting it implemented?
And if you can't think of anything else, just ask what they think you should know about the company. Maybe you don't know what you don't know!
You shouldn't feel like you're walking a fine line between looking disinterested for not asking questions and looking entitled for asking them. Even if you bombed the interview (and who hasn't), asking questions about the company will give you more information for comparison at the companies whose interviews you succeed at. And if you have multiple rounds of interviews, feel free to ask the same question to multiple people to get differing opinions.
The company you go to is going to be part of your life for a long time, educate yourself about work environments just like you educate yourself about your field.