Interview: Driving Signal
Interviewers are trained to pick up on signals to determine whether a particular candidate is a hire or no hire. Different roles demand different strengths on different signals, so there’s no one bill that fits all on how to optimize. This section will go over general characteristics that are commonly sought after, and what it looks like for candidates at different levels.
Autonomy
Early career candidates typically are not judged harshly on this front, but there can still be giveaways when this signal is lacking. For example, showing an overdependence on the interviewer, such as asking unnecessary followup questions, indicates that the intended level of information provided was insufficient. More commonly for inexperienced candidates, having nothing to discuss in depth for their extracurricular projects can also be perceived as a negative signal.
Collaboration
Signals for collaboration are often weighed heavily for early career folks. Synonyms include “teachability”/”learnability”, agreeableness (usually framed from the negative as “clashing”, “combative”, etc). A candidate who might lack technical experience, but shows that they’re open-minded and is willing to learn is likely to be a better colleague than a similar early career engineer that might know their specific stack well, but doesn’t show that they can adapt to the new company.
Execution
Students typically overestimate the value of execution during an interview - “If I produce the optimal output, what is there even to talk about?”. Of course, there’s a balance to be struck, and I would typically advise students to think carefully about why they may or may not have passed an interview. A student with strong signals on autonomy and collaboration, but fails to land on an appropriate technical solution is likely to fail. However, often times when students ask me why they failed a technical round when they are sure they produced the optimal answer, the reason is often due to lacking signals on other fronts.
That being said, even when people think that they’ve reached the optimal solution, that’s not necessarily a sufficient signal that the candidate is strong on the execution front. Commonly, this can be due to if the candidate has seen a similar problem before. Haven seen the problem prior is not an issue, but if the candidate is slow to answer follow-up questions, or doesn’t get through all the questions the interviewer had planned for, then that would be sufficient to say that the candidate didn’t complete the problem well. To reiterate that last point - you don’t know how many follow ups the interviewer had in mind, so don’t form conclusions on your ability to execute solely based on the fact that you completed a follow up.
