I misread the domain at first and thought this was going to be a Marxist analysis and takedown of common interview questions from Jacobin Mag. I have to say I am disappointed
I thought these were pretty good. Diversity questions are particularly hard, especially when interviewing an individual contributor who may feel like they have no say in hiring decisions. But it's so much more than just that and even then, as a manager, I would hope my team would hold me accountable around this topic if I wasn't doing a good job at it.
Explain a Topic At Multiple Levels - This is an excellent question. Communication is an underrated skill in most tech teams. They just complain that others "don't get it." The ability to understand others' points of view and interests and communicate with those in mind is important.
Tell Me About a Project You Led - This is another good one. A good related question would be, "What leaders have you had in the past that you admired?"
Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion - I don't like it. I support all three, even without the business bonuses. However, the jargon in that community is vast and quickly changing. There's also potential for unintentional landmines. Worse, no sane person on Earth today is going to walk into an interview and tell you they hate those things.
Tell Me About a Disagreement - This is another good one. Conflict is present anywhere two or more people do anything. Conflict resolution is a big part of the workplace and how well you do in it. For leaders, you should also add followups on how they help mediate conflict.
The Weakness Question - This question is famously poor. In a frictionless vacuum where no one is swayed by concretions, it seems like an excellent question. Everyone has weaknesses that they have to work on. It is the central mechanism of improvement. In practice, you are going to pull in unconscious biases that shouldn't but will effect your decision. Worse, you will lose strong candidates that will see you even asking this question as a red flag. I strongly recommend never asking any version of this question in an interview.
Well, for example, I got a twinge of nerves on reading the following "red flag":
> Only focuses on a single group (e.g. women) to the exclusion of other forms of diversity
That is, if you make the mistake of going in too much depth on one particular aspect, then this is a red flag. I could easily imagine myself doing this simply because I have a tendency to answer interview questions depth-first rather than breadth-first.
I was also a bit terrified of "when I ask this question of an underrepresented candidate…". Some forms of group identity are outwardly visible; some are not. The author notes how sensitive this subject is, and then also predicates a fifth of the "discussion" section on the assumption that they can reliably make this judgement.
And on this "red flag":
> Indicates distrust of workplace inclusivity measures like codes of conduct, anti-harassment training, etc.
There was a good while when I distrusted all corporate training, simply because the only forms of active corporate training I had been exposed to were these box-checking legal cover-your-arse arrangements. If you've only experienced that kind of training, then of course you have a generalised distrust of it.
If you give me a list of criteria on which you are judging me, I will certainly be able to find ways in which I violate those criteria, no matter what the criteria are. (It's exactly the same problem as odd-one-out questions: there's always a way to make something the odd one out, so there's no right answer.) Hence the landmines: you can't know in advance which of those violations are actually meaningful to the interviewer.
DEI questions is a good way to select people that can lie with a straight face. Not disclosing your cards is a valuable skill for managers and to some line employees. Weak candidates bluntly speak their mind and tell more than you ask for. Average candidates conceal their true podition in a cringy way. Strong candidates can smooth talk on the plain speech level and crack impolite jokes in such a way that only few would understand.
I agree with you on the weaker / avg. responses this question, but you have no way of distinguishing a polished BSer you want from the sincere fanatic on these topics who will be absolutely toxic to your org.
Isn't that what all of these "Tell me about a time when..." questions select for? They're just a filter for people that can come up with a convincing lie on the spot. Or those that have prepared a set of lies for questions that the interviewer asked.
For example on the disagreement question they have this as a red flag:
>Resolution through avoidance
Sorry, but this is how the world works. Maybe there's some idyllic companies out there full of reasonable people working through disagreements, but it's definitely not most. Most of them will punish you for openly disagreeing with them. Avoidance is an appropriate strategy in that situation.
You just don't resolve it. Most conflicts are about unimportant things and resolving a conflict usually burns some social capital, because someone will be proven wrong, etc.
"Tell me about an experience mentoring someone." would probably get better responses. Ask about DEI directly and people will just recite the woke handbook, whether they believe it or not.
I wholeheartedly agree! The DEI question is especially tricky - the topic itself, of course, but more about the way the question is asked. Similarly to the 'weakness' question, the biggest issue is that it's not situational. You can learn about the candidate's level of candor in different ways. Self-awareness and growth mindset are NOT tested with this question... I usually ask separate questions for those, and self-awareness itself is pretty obvious from other situational questions or follow-up discussions for those.
E.g. for learning: "Let's talk about learning. What's the last new thing you've learnt? Why that and not something else? How to you choose what to learn next? What's your method of learning, what works best for you?"
About communication: hell yeah it's underrated and when you hire bad communicators and don't coach them you won't know what hit you and your team. I'm writing a lot about this and tangential topics:
> Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion - I don't like it. I support all three, even without the business bonuses. However, the jargon in that community is vast and quickly changing. There's also potential for unintentional landmines. Worse, no sane person on Earth today is going to walk into an interview and tell you they hate those things.
It's not necessary about "target demographics". A non-"diverse" team (depending on your definition of "diverse") can still be extremely inclusive. Just look at how well they onboard new hires.
The Weakness Question is a hard one because it'll be interpreted very differently in different cultures. Some will happily give you a list of areas they want to improve while others will consider answering the question an admission of failure (losing face).
On DEI - the purpose is exactly that. You want to see how well someone can navigate the landmines.
Any thoughtful person probably:
1. Agrees in principle that DEI is important, and that cultural, racial, ethnic, linguistic, economic diversity makes organizations/communities/people better
and 2. has some criticism or concerns about how DEI is typically implemented in practice.
It takes a lot of tact to express #2 in a way that it won't get you or your company canceled. Especially in a tech company, with all the moral scrutiny the industry has come under lately, the private opinion of one employee can become a very public and embarrassing matter. For that reason, I think asking a DEI question in an interview is more to see "is this person going to be a liability for us or do they know how to talk about difficult topics without pissing anybody off?"
If you ask a politically loaded question such as one about diversity, in an engineering interview, I would walk out. Those who do so are the reason a divide grows in the USA. Diversity of background and ideas is superb. Diversity of skin color, for skin color’s sake, is racist in the highest degree. Judge a man by his deeds and character, not his race.
Not talking about inclusion is effectively accepting the current inclusion status quo. Talking about it isn’t divisive, it’s being frank about existing division. If you really believe that inclusion is so valuable you should be willing to accept the discomfort of recognizing that it’s not where it should be.
It is, after all, logically impossible for every company to hire the best candidate on the same scale. If you interview people by general aptitude, one company (with the best salary etc.) will get the top folks and everyone else will settle. (It also makes independent interviewing rather useless: each company may as well outsource the job to a single service provider who's good at interviewing and returns a scalar.)
So, the effective way to interview, if you happen not to be a monopoly in your field, is to find candidates who are better for your company.
Some companies believe diversity of skin color actually matters and demonstrates a serious commitment to avoiding groupthink. Some companies believe they should not be caring about skin color at all. You're looking for a company in the latter group, and they're looking for you.
If you give a poor answer to this question, as posed by a company in the first group, it serves the purpose of interviewing - it accurately determines that both you and the company will be unhappy with you being hired at that company.
Yeah, the correct answer in some interviews is to go on a rant about PC culture. Just not at this place, they'd probably like it if you went on a rant about how privileged white men are though.
The correct answer is not the passing answer. The purpose of an interview, both for the candidate and the company, is to see if you're the right fit. If you say "Oh yes I agree with your DEI goals" and you don't, you'll be miserable pretending to care about them your whole job, same as if you said "Oh yes I love showing up at 8 AM wearing a suit" if you don't to a company that cares about you doing so.
No, there are many companies that claim to care about these things so it shows up in their interview process. They actually don’t much so if you can’t suffer through the stupidity it can very well be the right career move to take the job.
> color actually matters and demonstrates a serious commitment to avoiding groupthink
This statement is based on the racist assumption that skin color makes you think differently. A middle class Asian person who went to college at Stanford is going to think identically to a white middle class person who went to college. A white person who grew up dirt poor and self taught online is going to be vastly different from either.
> This statement is based on the racist assumption that skin color makes you think differently.
Skin color doesn't make you think differently, but it (and, even moreso, racial identity, which is different than skin color) does correlate with things beyond socioeconomic class and personal level of education that do.
> A middle class Asian person who went to college at Stanford is going to think identically to a white middle class person who went to college.
It's possible, because the range of variation overlaps considerably, but, overall, no, major subcultural and lived-experience differences in the US don't reduce to economic class and whether (or even where) you went to college.
> A middle class Asian person who went to college at Stanford is going to think identically to a white middle class person who went to college.
I thought this was true for a while but I've worked with enough asians (who are also born in USA - some even with their parents being American too) to realize this just isn't true. The white/asian experience has a very different parental/family background. A lot of kids learning some other language from an early age even if their parents weren't born in that country the language is known for.
Most white kids don't go through a lot of that stuff. I used to think "Ah, hello, my fellow American!" And then I realized many asians didn't align with the American identity - at least in SV. Many felt like they were very closely tied (or closer) to their parents or grandparents homeland. Super weird - imo...
Let me also add one thing I didn't phrase clearly last night - if it is true (and I, like you, don't believe it's true) that an Asian Stanford grad has the same perspectives and experiences as a white Stanford grad, then that gives all the more validity to making sure you're not unnecessarily discriminating against one or the other group. Your ratio of Asian to white hires should be roughly on par with the fraction of, if nothing else, Asian and white Stanford grads. If it is wildly different, then it's an indicator that something is wrong.
Perhaps you are not losing out on perspectives and experiences, per se, but perhaps the biased person running your initial phone screens is causing you to lose out on good candidates who are from a race they don't like, i.e., you're limiting the number of candidates of this perspective and experience that you're willing to interview. That would be a problem worth being aware of! Completely ignoring race means you don't have the data. It doesn't prevent the problem from happening.
(See also, "Why is the net wired randomly?", asked Minsky. "I do not want it to have any preconceptions of how to play", Sussman said.*)
> This statement is based on the racist assumption that skin color makes you think differently.
I think it rather is based on the assumption that you are likely to have been treated differently in your life as a result, and thus have different lived experiences that can influence your work.
I am an Indian engineer in a tech company in Austin and out of the 8 people in my team 7 are Indians / Asians in their late 20s / early 30s who all followed roughly the same career trajectory (Undergrad in India / China from one of 2-3 universities, followed almost immediately by Masters in the US followed by joining tech jobs in the last 7-8 years).
The eighth guy is a white American guy in his 40s who grew up in Alabama, was in the US Air Force for a bit, then did his undergrad in an unrelated field from a relatively unheard-of university, then self-taught programming and worked a few odd IT jobs before landing here.
If you ask me, he is the true source of diversity in the team, but pretty sure none of the teams tasked with increasing diversity see it that way.
Yeah, if your team is made up of people from USA, France, Russia, India, China and Korea then you have plenty of diversity even if none of them are black. I'd argue that they are more diverse than a team comprised of people grown up in USA with latino, black, white and asian exteriors.
Diversity doesn't mean "non-white," it means "varied." Yes, your team is diverse because of his inclusion, and it's diverse because of yours too.
Individual people aren't diverse, teams are. To say that one guy is the source of diversity is like saying that he is the source of the eight-ness of the number of people on your team.
> Diversity doesn't mean "non-white," it means "varied."
In USA it means "Black and Latino representation according to US demographics". It isn't the words actual meaning, but that it is how its used and if you are trying to argue something different you will almost surely be labelled racist by the person asking this question.
For example, lets say you answer this question:
> That’s a bit about what these values mean to us; what do diversity, equity, and inclusion mean to you?
With: I always worked on very diverse teams comprised of people from many backgrounds including Russians, Indians, Europeans. We worked hard to ensure that language barriers weren't a problem by forcing everyone to talk in English so nobody feels left out etc, it is a challenge but having a diverse team definitely is worth it.
Do you think you'd get hired? Maybe, but it is pretty likely they will see that answer as a dog whistle for being right wing and just end the process right then and there.
That doesn't sound like a right wing dogwhistle, although you could perhaps phrase "by forcing everyone to talk in English" differently to not be so negative.
But overall, it's a great answer. You talked about your specific team, which happened to include Russians, Indians, and Europeans. You pointed out that there were challenges involved, but you made an effort to make sure nobody felt left out, and that overall it was worth it. Nice!
Yeah, that was the point. My experience is working with teams with very varied backgrounds in Europe, and you really have to make a point to talk a common language. Instead of speaking my native language with others with my background I speak English. Similarly others have to do the same thing. If a group of Russians speak Russian with each other it hurts the group.
The reason I brought that up is because I've seen some American progressives say that trying to make people speak English is racist or non inclusive. But it is the other way around. in the teams I've worked nobody were native English speakers but everyone spoke English. That is the only sensible way to handle a diverse team and letting people speak their native language just creates silos and removes the point of diversity. And someone on the team being a native English speaker wouldn't change that point.
For example, if I worked in USA and a group of latinos spoke Spanish with each other I'd tell them to speak English. Not because I think they need to speak English in USA but because they are excluding other groups by speaking a language only they understand. Similarly if I were to speak Swedish with my teammates I'd expect others to say the same thing to me, and in diverse environments I even speak English when everyone around me knows Swedish just to make it a habit.
Thanks. The nuance you've added with this comment makes a lot of sense to me, and it wasn't quite apparent in your original comment. But even then, I (or most American progressives) wouldn't consider it a major red flag or blocker for hiring.
I know it would be fine with a lot of sensible people, but a lot of people just lock in on what they perceive to be a problematic remark and stop listening. You must have experienced it yourself at many points where someone you talk to just took something you said and refuse to listen to anything else. This is just as prevalent among all political sides, just that you are familiar with the group you grow up with so you don't trigger their irrational reactions as much.
Now I've read a lot about American culture and politics online, but a more ignorant person with my experience would just bluntly say that as if it was common sense and as you saw you homed in on forcing people to speak English yourself. If you were a bit less understanding it would have ended the hiring process right there.
Yes, which is why I said he was the 'source' of diversity. If 7 data points have value X and one has value Y, then Y is the 'source' of the variance, else the variance would be zero.
> Diversity doesn't mean "non-white," it means "varied."
It's funny that literally the sister comment of my comment links to how someone at Apple was driven out of their job for saying this. For your own sake I'd recommend you don't express these opinions at your workplace.
It's funny that literally the sister comment of my comment links to how someone at Apple was driven out of their job for saying this. For your own sake I'd recommend you don't express these opinions at your workplace.
Companies are, for lack of better wording... diverse. Not all of them are biased the same way politically, despite the fact that a few big and prominent ones are. I've never worked in FAANG, but there are plenty of others who haven't "drunk the woke-aid".
I've been the white guy in that situation, and it can be not great, but it was specifically with a 90% Chinese team. I can tell you who never quite fit in and who got laid off first...
I wouldn't join a team like that again because of how much harder it made things. Maybe this is an argument for why diverse teams are good?
I think it's likely that certain types of diversity produce better outcomes. My problem with the research is publication bias, publication bias where finding the opposite will cost you a career, most of the experiments being contrived, social science being a joke field, and the sort of people who are attracted to social science.
I went through the top results of that search, and most of them make no claims at all about the performance differences of diverse vs non-diverse groups (since they instead adress some quite different questions), and those in the top results of this search who do look into performance comparisons do not find such an advantage, they find that there is no significant difference. Furthermore, a large part of the studies are focused on artificial short-term cooperations e.g. study groups or team projects at a university course (which actually eliminates a key part of diversity by ensuring that all the team members are of a similar age group and of similar specialization, they essentially only measure the effect of ethnic variation) which aren't really representative of what the success criteria are in a business environment.
Perhaps there are studies that would justify a claim that "diverse teams are more successful", however, this particular search does not immediately lead to them and should not be used as evidence of some scientific consensus on the matter - quite the contrary.
Yeah people always seem to assume diversity should be based on your skin pigmentation. Reminds me of that Apple Diversity VP who said, "There can be 12 white, blue-eyed, blonde men in a room and they're going to be diverse too because they're going to bring a different life experience and life perspective to the conversation.” Needless to say she was forced to resign after that comment.
I want to hire the least diverse team as possible, here are the traits that they are selected on:
- highly intelligent
- professional work attitude
- nice people to work with
If you want to hire a more diverse group where there are some jerks in there, and idiots that screw up all the time, that's fine. But I like my team uniformly aligned like this.
> Diversity, equity, and inclusion are important to us. We know that diverse teams are more successful, and we work hard to ensure everyone is treated fairly and respectfully. That’s a bit about what these values mean to us; what do diversity, equity, and inclusion mean to you?
Ugh, this question really made me cringe.
Interviewers are in a position of power over interviewees, and the whole point of a job interview is to assess a candidate. The fact is that if an interviewer doesn't like the answer, it will reflect negatively on the interviewee.
If you're in a majority group, I'd suggest seriously re-thinking whether to ask this question to a candidate from a minority group, at least during an assessment.
After they've been onboarded? Sure. But not while you're in a position of power over them.
> the whole point of a job interview is to assess a candidate. The fact is that if an interviewer doesn't like the answer, it will reflect negatively on the interviewee.
Yeah, they don't ask this question just for fun. They write in the background section that the purpose is "It selects for candidates who share these values [...] if they believe that this is all just political correctness gone wrong, or that white people are really the oppressed ones, they aren’t going to be able to work well with me and my teams."
So I'm not sure why they'd wait to do this evaluation until after onboarding.
You also seem to think that the only time the company has a position of power over the employee is during the interview process. But generally the boss/HR has power over the worker even after onboarding (a different kind -- to fire rather than hire), so I'm not sure where your power analysis is grounded...
I agree that it is definitely something they should bring up as early in the interview process as possible. If a company strongly identifies with neoracism[1], I'd like to avoid wasting my time interviewing with them. And I'm a POC!
You should absolutely ask the diversity question to members of minority groups because they are not immune to having strange ideas about diversity, inclusion and especially equity.
When your interviewer is a genderqueer woman, and she tells you that she has trouble working with men (that really happened) you appreciate the honesty, and then you run as fast as you can. That was a bridge-burning move from that company.
Words can be loaded with political affiliation. The way you choose to say "we want everyone to feel welcome" might (unintentionally) make some people feel that they're not actually welcome.
There is nothing inherently good or bad ethnic diversity. What is inherently good is to not treat people any differently because of their ethnic/gender/sexuality... group membership. But that’s not the objective of HR diversity programs. Those programs are designed to introduce race based (or gender based, or sexuality based...) decisions into the hiring and promotion processes. You can form your own opinion on whether that’s a good or bad thing, but it’s certainly not universally agreed upon as a good thing (in fact it’s quite controversial), and it certainly is a common element in “progressive left” ideologies.
However, I would also very much appreciate knowing whether a company has such policies as early in the hiring process as possible.
> There is nothing inherently good or bad ethnic diversity.
Depends on the context. For example, if your user base is diverse, it can be larger than if it wasn't - the total potential market is larger. So, diversity is profitable in that context.
Serving a diverse user base well is potentially easier with diverse staff. Remember those "Falsehoods programmers believe about X" articles? With a diverse team, chances are higher that those falsehoods are caught early, because the team covers a broader range of life experiences. So, diversity is good in that context.
How much of an impact this argument has depends on the concrete role, of course. My work tends to be very low on the overall software stack, and the notion that diversity helps seems very weak there. At the very least, I expect that diversity of thought or actual neurodiversity matters more than ethnic or gender diversity.
I don’t think your first point is particularly relevant to the topic. If you were to continue growing a customer base forever, you’d presume that it would increasingly become more diverse forever. But the point you’re making seems to be that having more customers is good, not that having a more diverse set of customers is good.
I think your second point is completely valid. Having a greater diversity of skills, perspectives, experience, ideas... on a team seems to be obviously beneficial. But that’s not at all relevant to the types of diversity HR programs aim to implement. Those programs are generally concerned with factors like ethnicity, gender, and sexuality... which are not at all related to the factors you mentioned.
> At the very least, I expect that diversity of thought or actual neurodiversity matters more than ethnic or gender diversity.
The interview questions like this are usually designed to eliminate neurodiversity. I mean, how many people on autistic spectrum could successfully navigate them without triggering at least one "red flag"?
(When even things like "correctly answers part of the question, forgets there was a second part" are considered red flags.)
Are you pro life or against life? See how an innocent looking question can be a disguised trap. As an anon user, you can ignore the question and move on. However imagine this is asked by your interviewer or by someone who has power over your career, and asks this on a stage in front of a large audience.
“We emphasize equity” instead of “we emphasize equality” or “we reward merit” means there is going to need to be a lot of extra justification to promote/reward you if you are competing with someone from a disadvantaged background.
In good faith I will grant that maybe you don't know. A lot of things: including but not limited to relaxing standards of competence on hiring or promotion based on a person's protected status attributes, elevating certain controversial social and political opinions or hypotheses to fact while rendering other equally valid ones taboo, and operating under the assumption of guilt for certain people or incidents regardless of or at least before the facts of the case are analyzed.
If I was asked that question, it would raise a huge red flag. My response would probably be something like "so you don't value competence...", and then promptly leave.
If those traits are valued at that company, that seems like a perfect reason to ask that question then. Better to identify the misalignment in values early, and if it means a candidate walks out, so much the better for avoiding either party wasting the other's time.
Ever wonder why the quality of software in general took a very steep nosedive a few years ago? It also happens to be around the time the whole diversity/inclusion thing started taking off.
I've seen some things... but people don't like to hear the truth.
Agreed, even as somebody liberal-leaning, I think overtly politic-checking somebody like this is tacky and a red-flag. It says to me that this employer can't separate work and politics.
> If you're in a majority group, I'd suggest seriously re-thinking whether to ask this question to a candidate from a minority group, at least during an assessment.
Running the interview differently because of which (presumably protected) classes you judge the interviewee to be in is a big red flag. If you're not comfortable asking the question to some people, you shouldn't ask it.
Anyway, this question feels like a gotcha more than anything. You're supposed to say the right thing, not demonstrate it. Hiring people because they said the right thing rather than because they demonstrated the thing is a great way to get bamboozled.
If your company is doing well with diversity, inclusion, and equity, your interview team will likely be diverse. If a candidate won't work well in that environment, they'll likely make it known during the interview, or self select out.
If your company is not very diverse, or at least if the interviewers aren't, the question feels even more sketch.
If it's an important pillar of the company, by all means spend a few minutes telling candidates about it and if the candidate says or does something that raises a flag, handle it.
I like the framing of the weakness question far more than I was anticipating. It’s usually so lacking in context that it encourages bullshit answers (“my biggest weakness is I’m too dedicated to my work/too humble to take credit”, which isn’t just bullshit to the speaker but tells the interviewer nothing too). I got enough from the article that I felt prompted to be sincere about a very real weakness in my social and career performance just reading along, and would likely have been able to speak to it without too much discomfort.
(Specifically that I have a frankness/matter of factness that people often find offputting and make conflict resolution more difficult.)
> We’re socially conditioned to believe that certain accents – Black accents, Southern accents, strong accents from non-native-English speakers – are indicators of low intelligence. This is bullshit; don’t fall for the trap.
That's interesting. As a non-native English speaker, I was surprised to read it as well. Do American natives really think that non-native accents indicate low intelligence?
Which implies that I'm being untruthful or lacking introspection of my own guilt, by objecting to this phrasing. By accusing we/us of experiencing a specific unconcious bias, the author has set up a trap. I want it phrased honestly without assumption about the reader.
I have. I am as white as fallen snow and had a very thick Southern accent. "What y'all gonna need to do is git yerself..." That kind of thing.
I trained myself out of it almost immediately after hearing someone, when they thought I couldn't hear, call me a "backwater hick" and dismiss an entire meeting's worth of ideas and discussion I had led...and others agree with that person. That wasn't the only time, but it finally clicked.
I'm fortunate that I could work on that and tamp down my accent; other characteristics are more innate and cannot--nor should be required to be--"hidden from view." Even now, I will trip and slip in a "yuup" or "fixin' to" in a drawl and see the double-take on people's faces.
Yep. Ask any open-minded, liberal person from the coasts to do an impression of a stupid person, and 9 times out of 10 they're going to put on a bad southern accent. It's a bias, unconscious or otherwise.
Well they won't do a wealthy southern-peach accent, they'll probably do more of rural "trailer trash" imitation. I see it as classism more than racism, but it's there.
Look at how other cultures solved this issue. Arabic has a dialect known today as Standard Arabic. It's what official documents, books, news, documentaries, etc. are written or spoken in. Arabic speakers in general are able to understand, but in case their dialects are significantly different, they can always switch to Standard Arabic to get the point across.
Also, some people do pick up the local dialect in the country they're living or working in and attempt to speak it, it's not seen as somehow an inferior move or putting oneself down, on the contrary, it's showing a form of flattery.
I was trained out of my grandmother’s accent in elementary school, because my teachers knew that biases against it would hinder me later in life. It’s a shame. If I can claim to have any wit, she’s the influence that deserves most of the credit.
The logic behind hiring 20% blacks is that there are 20% blacks in the US. Same for hiring 50% women. But by the same logic, we should observe that only few people have IQ around 140 and selectively hiring only this group keeps people of average intelligence in poverty. This take is supported by the going theory that intelligence is assigned at birth in a random manner.
If the writer is going to enumerate all the "Positive Signs" and "Red Flags" for their interview questions, it seems like they're just making another shibboleth for which people will test-prep.
Is that what the writer wants? Is the intent to select for test-prep?
I was on a team where they asked the weakness question. In discussions afterwards, they used it to basically disqualify any candidate who was honest enough to give a real weakness--even if if was fairly benign like 'sometimes I don't get along with people' or 'sometimes I have anger issues'.
I understand that isn't how this author intends it to be used, but effectively it is. Never answer this. It's a trap.
Exactly. Everybody knows the bullshit of answering this question with "my weakness is that I work too hard" and all that. But it's actually the best answer to give in this case.
This diversity thing is really getting on my nerves.
I recently had to do a job interview for a programmer, and on his resume he put he worked on some "ethical project". Then during the interview, he asked how our company looked at diversity, and how women should get equal chances and all that. He technically wasn't good enough to make the cut. But even then, I don't want some political complainer in my team.
In fact our team is pretty diverse. I helped hire most of them. But we hire the ones who technically make the cut, and look like nice people to work with. Hiring "for diversity" really gives me the cringes.
I find it quite odd that actual diversity doesn't necessarily coincide with a claimed interest[1] in diversity. You don't advertise like all get out about diversity, and yet your team is pretty diverse. But look at the author of this post; he works for a company called Hangar who team is anything but diverse: https://www.hangar.is/team
What really concerns me is the following: If you know how I select people, you can assume that all of them are good in their job. Nobody was selected because of their background or color of their skin.
But if you hire for diversity, you can start questions why certain people are there. Because they are good at their job, or to satisfy the diversity?
So in practice, you are discrediting those people, and maybe they don't like to be judged like that.
So in effect, such teams that hire for diversity probably end up least diversified.
122 comments
[ 3.6 ms ] story [ 219 ms ] threadTell Me About a Project You Led - This is another good one. A good related question would be, "What leaders have you had in the past that you admired?"
Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion - I don't like it. I support all three, even without the business bonuses. However, the jargon in that community is vast and quickly changing. There's also potential for unintentional landmines. Worse, no sane person on Earth today is going to walk into an interview and tell you they hate those things.
Tell Me About a Disagreement - This is another good one. Conflict is present anywhere two or more people do anything. Conflict resolution is a big part of the workplace and how well you do in it. For leaders, you should also add followups on how they help mediate conflict.
The Weakness Question - This question is famously poor. In a frictionless vacuum where no one is swayed by concretions, it seems like an excellent question. Everyone has weaknesses that they have to work on. It is the central mechanism of improvement. In practice, you are going to pull in unconscious biases that shouldn't but will effect your decision. Worse, you will lose strong candidates that will see you even asking this question as a red flag. I strongly recommend never asking any version of this question in an interview.
> Only focuses on a single group (e.g. women) to the exclusion of other forms of diversity
That is, if you make the mistake of going in too much depth on one particular aspect, then this is a red flag. I could easily imagine myself doing this simply because I have a tendency to answer interview questions depth-first rather than breadth-first.
I was also a bit terrified of "when I ask this question of an underrepresented candidate…". Some forms of group identity are outwardly visible; some are not. The author notes how sensitive this subject is, and then also predicates a fifth of the "discussion" section on the assumption that they can reliably make this judgement.
And on this "red flag":
> Indicates distrust of workplace inclusivity measures like codes of conduct, anti-harassment training, etc.
There was a good while when I distrusted all corporate training, simply because the only forms of active corporate training I had been exposed to were these box-checking legal cover-your-arse arrangements. If you've only experienced that kind of training, then of course you have a generalised distrust of it.
If you give me a list of criteria on which you are judging me, I will certainly be able to find ways in which I violate those criteria, no matter what the criteria are. (It's exactly the same problem as odd-one-out questions: there's always a way to make something the odd one out, so there's no right answer.) Hence the landmines: you can't know in advance which of those violations are actually meaningful to the interviewer.
Ironic
For example on the disagreement question they have this as a red flag:
>Resolution through avoidance
Sorry, but this is how the world works. Maybe there's some idyllic companies out there full of reasonable people working through disagreements, but it's definitely not most. Most of them will punish you for openly disagreeing with them. Avoidance is an appropriate strategy in that situation.
Then there's no resolution.
Are you saying avoid talking about the conflict? Not sure how can you can resolve a situation with that.
E.g. for learning: "Let's talk about learning. What's the last new thing you've learnt? Why that and not something else? How to you choose what to learn next? What's your method of learning, what works best for you?"
About communication: hell yeah it's underrated and when you hire bad communicators and don't coach them you won't know what hit you and your team. I'm writing a lot about this and tangential topics:
https://ochronus.online/communication-for-software-engineers...
https://ochronus.online/active-listening-boosts-careers/
https://ochronus.online/how-to-stop-winning-arguments/
(sorry for the link-fest, but I do think these are interesting for this thread)
Same with any question having to do with testing. Sure, everyone tests! Why would I ever write code without tests!
First day on the job: Do I really have to write a test for this?!
It's not necessary about "target demographics". A non-"diverse" team (depending on your definition of "diverse") can still be extremely inclusive. Just look at how well they onboard new hires.
The Weakness Question is a hard one because it'll be interpreted very differently in different cultures. Some will happily give you a list of areas they want to improve while others will consider answering the question an admission of failure (losing face).
Any thoughtful person probably:
1. Agrees in principle that DEI is important, and that cultural, racial, ethnic, linguistic, economic diversity makes organizations/communities/people better
and 2. has some criticism or concerns about how DEI is typically implemented in practice.
It takes a lot of tact to express #2 in a way that it won't get you or your company canceled. Especially in a tech company, with all the moral scrutiny the industry has come under lately, the private opinion of one employee can become a very public and embarrassing matter. For that reason, I think asking a DEI question in an interview is more to see "is this person going to be a liability for us or do they know how to talk about difficult topics without pissing anybody off?"
It is, after all, logically impossible for every company to hire the best candidate on the same scale. If you interview people by general aptitude, one company (with the best salary etc.) will get the top folks and everyone else will settle. (It also makes independent interviewing rather useless: each company may as well outsource the job to a single service provider who's good at interviewing and returns a scalar.)
So, the effective way to interview, if you happen not to be a monopoly in your field, is to find candidates who are better for your company.
Some companies believe diversity of skin color actually matters and demonstrates a serious commitment to avoiding groupthink. Some companies believe they should not be caring about skin color at all. You're looking for a company in the latter group, and they're looking for you.
If you give a poor answer to this question, as posed by a company in the first group, it serves the purpose of interviewing - it accurately determines that both you and the company will be unhappy with you being hired at that company.
This statement is based on the racist assumption that skin color makes you think differently. A middle class Asian person who went to college at Stanford is going to think identically to a white middle class person who went to college. A white person who grew up dirt poor and self taught online is going to be vastly different from either.
Skin color doesn't make you think differently, but it (and, even moreso, racial identity, which is different than skin color) does correlate with things beyond socioeconomic class and personal level of education that do.
> A middle class Asian person who went to college at Stanford is going to think identically to a white middle class person who went to college.
It's possible, because the range of variation overlaps considerably, but, overall, no, major subcultural and lived-experience differences in the US don't reduce to economic class and whether (or even where) you went to college.
I thought this was true for a while but I've worked with enough asians (who are also born in USA - some even with their parents being American too) to realize this just isn't true. The white/asian experience has a very different parental/family background. A lot of kids learning some other language from an early age even if their parents weren't born in that country the language is known for.
Most white kids don't go through a lot of that stuff. I used to think "Ah, hello, my fellow American!" And then I realized many asians didn't align with the American identity - at least in SV. Many felt like they were very closely tied (or closer) to their parents or grandparents homeland. Super weird - imo...
Perhaps you are not losing out on perspectives and experiences, per se, but perhaps the biased person running your initial phone screens is causing you to lose out on good candidates who are from a race they don't like, i.e., you're limiting the number of candidates of this perspective and experience that you're willing to interview. That would be a problem worth being aware of! Completely ignoring race means you don't have the data. It doesn't prevent the problem from happening.
(See also, "Why is the net wired randomly?", asked Minsky. "I do not want it to have any preconceptions of how to play", Sussman said.*)
I think it rather is based on the assumption that you are likely to have been treated differently in your life as a result, and thus have different lived experiences that can influence your work.
The best combination for being hired by these companies is having a diverse skin color and being committed to the groupthink.
The second best combination is having a non-diverse skin color and being committed to the groupthink.
That's a very strong claim. What research?
>The teams I’ve liked the most have been the most diverse; the teams I’ve felt the most uncomfortable on are the ones where everyone looks like me.
Not surprisingly, for the author, "diversity" is only about how people look like. He also seems to suffer from self-hatred.
The eighth guy is a white American guy in his 40s who grew up in Alabama, was in the US Air Force for a bit, then did his undergrad in an unrelated field from a relatively unheard-of university, then self-taught programming and worked a few odd IT jobs before landing here.
If you ask me, he is the true source of diversity in the team, but pretty sure none of the teams tasked with increasing diversity see it that way.
Individual people aren't diverse, teams are. To say that one guy is the source of diversity is like saying that he is the source of the eight-ness of the number of people on your team.
In USA it means "Black and Latino representation according to US demographics". It isn't the words actual meaning, but that it is how its used and if you are trying to argue something different you will almost surely be labelled racist by the person asking this question.
For example, lets say you answer this question:
> That’s a bit about what these values mean to us; what do diversity, equity, and inclusion mean to you?
With: I always worked on very diverse teams comprised of people from many backgrounds including Russians, Indians, Europeans. We worked hard to ensure that language barriers weren't a problem by forcing everyone to talk in English so nobody feels left out etc, it is a challenge but having a diverse team definitely is worth it.
Do you think you'd get hired? Maybe, but it is pretty likely they will see that answer as a dog whistle for being right wing and just end the process right then and there.
But overall, it's a great answer. You talked about your specific team, which happened to include Russians, Indians, and Europeans. You pointed out that there were challenges involved, but you made an effort to make sure nobody felt left out, and that overall it was worth it. Nice!
The reason I brought that up is because I've seen some American progressives say that trying to make people speak English is racist or non inclusive. But it is the other way around. in the teams I've worked nobody were native English speakers but everyone spoke English. That is the only sensible way to handle a diverse team and letting people speak their native language just creates silos and removes the point of diversity. And someone on the team being a native English speaker wouldn't change that point.
For example, if I worked in USA and a group of latinos spoke Spanish with each other I'd tell them to speak English. Not because I think they need to speak English in USA but because they are excluding other groups by speaking a language only they understand. Similarly if I were to speak Swedish with my teammates I'd expect others to say the same thing to me, and in diverse environments I even speak English when everyone around me knows Swedish just to make it a habit.
Now I've read a lot about American culture and politics online, but a more ignorant person with my experience would just bluntly say that as if it was common sense and as you saw you homed in on forcing people to speak English yourself. If you were a bit less understanding it would have ended the hiring process right there.
The fact that it’s a minor red flag at all is the issue.
Telling a group of Spanish-speaking people to speak English to include everyone is a major no-no right now. Do you realize how colonial that is?
Yes, which is why I said he was the 'source' of diversity. If 7 data points have value X and one has value Y, then Y is the 'source' of the variance, else the variance would be zero.
> Diversity doesn't mean "non-white," it means "varied."
It's funny that literally the sister comment of my comment links to how someone at Apple was driven out of their job for saying this. For your own sake I'd recommend you don't express these opinions at your workplace.
Companies are, for lack of better wording... diverse. Not all of them are biased the same way politically, despite the fact that a few big and prominent ones are. I've never worked in FAANG, but there are plenty of others who haven't "drunk the woke-aid".
Dissociative identity (multiple personality) disorder.
...oh wait, that's a diversity of thought -- the wrong kind of diversity...
Mixed ancestry is the correct answer, I guess. Or intersexuality (hermaphroditism). Not sure if you need to be one, or is enough to identify as one.
I wouldn't join a team like that again because of how much harder it made things. Maybe this is an argument for why diverse teams are good?
Perhaps there are studies that would justify a claim that "diverse teams are more successful", however, this particular search does not immediately lead to them and should not be used as evidence of some scientific consensus on the matter - quite the contrary.
https://www.businessinsider.com/apples-vp-diversity-12-white...
Not really. She's still at Apple.
https://www.linkedin.com/in/soprano/
https://www.blackenterprise.com/apple-denise-young-smith-own...
If you think correlation implies causation, I know a lot of ways to brings value to your company.
- highly intelligent
- professional work attitude
- nice people to work with
If you want to hire a more diverse group where there are some jerks in there, and idiots that screw up all the time, that's fine. But I like my team uniformly aligned like this.
;)
sigh.
Ugh, this question really made me cringe.
Interviewers are in a position of power over interviewees, and the whole point of a job interview is to assess a candidate. The fact is that if an interviewer doesn't like the answer, it will reflect negatively on the interviewee.
If you're in a majority group, I'd suggest seriously re-thinking whether to ask this question to a candidate from a minority group, at least during an assessment.
After they've been onboarded? Sure. But not while you're in a position of power over them.
Yeah, they don't ask this question just for fun. They write in the background section that the purpose is "It selects for candidates who share these values [...] if they believe that this is all just political correctness gone wrong, or that white people are really the oppressed ones, they aren’t going to be able to work well with me and my teams."
So I'm not sure why they'd wait to do this evaluation until after onboarding.
You also seem to think that the only time the company has a position of power over the employee is during the interview process. But generally the boss/HR has power over the worker even after onboarding (a different kind -- to fire rather than hire), so I'm not sure where your power analysis is grounded...
[1] https://www.persuasion.community/p/john-mcwhorter-the-neorac...
I agree, but it's a matter of degree. In practice, it's significantly easier to reject a candidate than it is to fire an employee.
When your interviewer is a genderqueer woman, and she tells you that she has trouble working with men (that really happened) you appreciate the honesty, and then you run as fast as you can. That was a bridge-burning move from that company.
However, I would also very much appreciate knowing whether a company has such policies as early in the hiring process as possible.
Depends on the context. For example, if your user base is diverse, it can be larger than if it wasn't - the total potential market is larger. So, diversity is profitable in that context.
Serving a diverse user base well is potentially easier with diverse staff. Remember those "Falsehoods programmers believe about X" articles? With a diverse team, chances are higher that those falsehoods are caught early, because the team covers a broader range of life experiences. So, diversity is good in that context.
How much of an impact this argument has depends on the concrete role, of course. My work tends to be very low on the overall software stack, and the notion that diversity helps seems very weak there. At the very least, I expect that diversity of thought or actual neurodiversity matters more than ethnic or gender diversity.
I think your second point is completely valid. Having a greater diversity of skills, perspectives, experience, ideas... on a team seems to be obviously beneficial. But that’s not at all relevant to the types of diversity HR programs aim to implement. Those programs are generally concerned with factors like ethnicity, gender, and sexuality... which are not at all related to the factors you mentioned.
The interview questions like this are usually designed to eliminate neurodiversity. I mean, how many people on autistic spectrum could successfully navigate them without triggering at least one "red flag"?
(When even things like "correctly answers part of the question, forgets there was a second part" are considered red flags.)
The set of categories that diversity advocates typically care about is itself not diverse.
But both those phrases are strong tribal markers.
I've seen some things... but people don't like to hear the truth.
"Ever wonder why the quality of software in general took a very steep nosedive a few years ago?"
You are implying like the whole industry went down
Running the interview differently because of which (presumably protected) classes you judge the interviewee to be in is a big red flag. If you're not comfortable asking the question to some people, you shouldn't ask it.
Anyway, this question feels like a gotcha more than anything. You're supposed to say the right thing, not demonstrate it. Hiring people because they said the right thing rather than because they demonstrated the thing is a great way to get bamboozled.
If your company is doing well with diversity, inclusion, and equity, your interview team will likely be diverse. If a candidate won't work well in that environment, they'll likely make it known during the interview, or self select out.
If your company is not very diverse, or at least if the interviewers aren't, the question feels even more sketch.
If it's an important pillar of the company, by all means spend a few minutes telling candidates about it and if the candidate says or does something that raises a flag, handle it.
(Specifically that I have a frankness/matter of factness that people often find offputting and make conflict resolution more difficult.)
Uh, what? Delete this
I have. I am as white as fallen snow and had a very thick Southern accent. "What y'all gonna need to do is git yerself..." That kind of thing.
I trained myself out of it almost immediately after hearing someone, when they thought I couldn't hear, call me a "backwater hick" and dismiss an entire meeting's worth of ideas and discussion I had led...and others agree with that person. That wasn't the only time, but it finally clicked.
I'm fortunate that I could work on that and tamp down my accent; other characteristics are more innate and cannot--nor should be required to be--"hidden from view." Even now, I will trip and slip in a "yuup" or "fixin' to" in a drawl and see the double-take on people's faces.
Now I know yer fixin to stamp out your past and I know we’ve met but we ain’t shook, but I hope you might could embrace it again some day. :)
Love southern accent. It's so cool.
Also, some people do pick up the local dialect in the country they're living or working in and attempt to speak it, it's not seen as somehow an inferior move or putting oneself down, on the contrary, it's showing a form of flattery.
Is that what the writer wants? Is the intent to select for test-prep?
I understand that isn't how this author intends it to be used, but effectively it is. Never answer this. It's a trap.
I recently had to do a job interview for a programmer, and on his resume he put he worked on some "ethical project". Then during the interview, he asked how our company looked at diversity, and how women should get equal chances and all that. He technically wasn't good enough to make the cut. But even then, I don't want some political complainer in my team.
In fact our team is pretty diverse. I helped hire most of them. But we hire the ones who technically make the cut, and look like nice people to work with. Hiring "for diversity" really gives me the cringes.
Keep your political bullshit out of my team.
[1] This is also called "virtue signalling".
But if you hire for diversity, you can start questions why certain people are there. Because they are good at their job, or to satisfy the diversity?
So in practice, you are discrediting those people, and maybe they don't like to be judged like that.
So in effect, such teams that hire for diversity probably end up least diversified.
Take a look at their Team page at https://www.hangar.is/team and judge for yourself how "diverse" they currently are.