“meet the team” interview

Specialun · 04-03-2021 10:13am #1

hi

i have had 3 interviews ( hr x1. vp x2 ) and now the next stage is meeting the team i potentially could be working with (engineer + guy in same position in america)

i have never had this in a process. i assume this is more of an informal chat to see if we wont wanna kill eachother

any advice. is this a good sign. do you think they could throw curveballs? would this typically be multiple candidates?

Batgurl · 04-03-2021 1:00pm

Could be one of two things:

You are the corporate pick and they just want to sanity check that you are a good fit for the team (and just as important for you to make sure that the team is a good fit for you).

It’s down to you and one other person, and they’ll let the team decide who they’d prefer working with. A difficult one because it’s more about personality fit than anything.

All in all though, I respect a company that does this as it shows they care about culture and fit, and not just about getting someone in to fill a role.

OMM 0000 · 04-03-2021 3:08pm

Specialun wrote: »

hi

i have had 3 interviews ( hr x1. vp x2 ) and now the next stage is meeting the team i potentially could be working with (engineer + guy in same position in america)

i have never had this in a process. i assume this is more of an informal chat to see if we wont wanna kill eachother

any advice. is this a good sign. do you think they could throw curveballs? would this typically be multiple candidates?

For me this is a massive red flag I will hate working there and I would drop out of the interview process.

It is a good sign they are interested in hiring you though, but to me it's a bad sign about the company.

I guess it all depends on how many options you have. For example, I declined working for Google due to their interview process. It's like they want people to join a cult. Not for me.

But, to answer your question, you're in the running.

Interested Observer · 04-03-2021 3:54pm

OMM 0000 wrote: »

For me this is a massive red flag I will hate working there and I would drop out of the interview process.

It is a good sign they are interested in hiring you though, but to me it's a bad sign about the company.

I guess it all depends on how many options you have. For example, I declined working for Google due to their interview process. It's like they want people to join a cult. Not for me.

But, to answer your question, you're in the running.

I don't really get from your post why?

I have also (unsuccessfully) interviewed with Google, didn't really find anything cult-like about it. There were a good few interviews, they were quite tough, but they were fairly normal as well.

ELM327 · 04-03-2021 4:11pm

We (MNC, not google but similarish fintech company) interview like this.
If you get to the "meet the team" interview it's like royal sign off, you have the job unless you're a psycho or can't interact with tech folks.

TimeToShine · 04-03-2021 5:01pm

Never heard of a meet the team interview used to make a decision, it's more of a final sense check before making an offer. The way I see it, the more layers in the process the more time and money the company has invested in getting you to offer stage, and that sunk cost gives you a bit more bargaining power.

XVII · 04-03-2021 5:30pm

I haven't heard of this, but I think it's a great opportunity to meet people who you'll be working with. Maybe I'm in minority here, but whenever applying for new jobs, I always have concerns about my future team. Partially because my current one is just so good. So at least, you'll have a chance to meet them first and decide if they ok, not like being dropped to a bunch of randoms on your first day. Definitely no any red flags there, use this for your own research about your future position.

OMM 0000 · 04-03-2021 5:42pm

Interested Observer wrote: »

I don't really get from your post why?

I'll try to answer. I've had a few beers so take that into account.

The CV and cover letter already tell you if the person has the skills and experience for the job.

So the interview is about verifying some details and looking for warning signs to not hire them.

There is a known way to do this (all these stupid questions like "what's your weakness" actually have a meaning) so multiple rounds of interviews with people who don't know how to interview is a massive warning sign the company is a mess and are "doing things their way" instead of following the science.

It should go like this (roughly):

* Interview with team manager and HR person.
* Second interview with a decision maker. The team manager and HR person may sit in on this meeting too.

This trend (in tech companies) of having engineers interview people is just stupid. Firstly, most engineers have awful people skills and almost zero business knowledge. Secondly, interviews are extremely abnormal environments so you are not seeing the real person. All you're seeing is (a) a very nervous person and/or (b) someone who has practiced how to give the correct answer.

I've interviewed maybe 1000 people and I generally know within a few seconds if I want to hire them. The rest of the interview is then a case of "will they disqualify themselves" by saying something weird.

Interviewing is a skill and there is a correct way to do it. There is a correct way to answer every question.

Interviews are contrived situations and having multiple rounds does not make sense.

I've hired, I don't know, hundreds of people, and I have only had to fire a handful, and this was due to things you would never pick up in an interview (e.g. I fired one guy for being a vocal homophobic person, I fired another guy for sexually harassing women).

In a nutshell, how a company interviews tells you a lot about their business and process understanding. If they are involving the engineering team in the process, they are ignoring the science and doing things their own way. The advantage of this is the company is probably a mess and you can get promoted quickly, but why not just work for a company who know what they're doing?

If you've worked for a tech company you probably know a lot of the managers do not have a business or management background (e.g. no MBA). So they are making things up instead of doing things the proper way. Hence "let's get the programmers to group interview people!"

Specialun · 04-03-2021 6:46pm

i love the posts that start with “bear in mind that ive had few drinks”

Mrs OBumble · 04-03-2021 7:15pm

OMM 0000 wrote: »

Interviewing is a skill and there is a correct way to do it. There is a correct way to answer every question.
...

If they are involving the engineering team in the process, they are ignoring the science and doing things their own way.

Have you got any links to this science (sic)?

OMM 0000 · 04-03-2021 7:23pm

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Have you got any links to this science (sic)?

Are you trying to pretend management science isn't a real thing?

Here's a random example, but you'll need to pay: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/001088049503600613

This is a big area, and is the reason HR people always ask the same questions.

Responder XY · 04-03-2021 7:23pm

a "meet the team" interview is very odd. This would be a big red flag for me. I can't imagine going into a situation where you are supposed to mix with other team members as some type of social exercise where everyone is just wondering if you'll be offered the job and if you decide it's for you and if you can agree salary/terms etc...

Additionally, it sounds like you are going somewhere with inept leadership who can't make a decision that they'd put this on the table. I'd walk.

AndrewJRenko · 04-03-2021 7:28pm

Responder XY wrote: »

a "meet the team" interview is very odd. This would be a big red flag for me. I can't imagine going into a situation where you are supposed to mix with other team members as some type of social exercise where everyone is just wondering if you'll be offered the job and if you decide it's for you and if you can agree salary/terms etc...

Additionally, it sounds like you are going somewhere with inept leadership who can't make a decision that they'd put this on the table. I'd walk.

It also tends to result in workforces with little diversity. People tend to gel with people like themselves, similar age, similar gender, similar social class, similar educational experiences.

Group think is the end result.

wazabru · 04-03-2021 8:01pm

Meet the team is a very normal part of the process, particularly with USA founded companies. As has been said it is to get a sense of fit. However be very prepared for a bit of technical questioning.... this is down to the human need to see if the person being considered is a peer, raising the bar or possibly going to need a lot of hand holding.
I disagree that it is a red flag. It is equally allowing you to assess them and if by working with this team, are you going to grow as a professional. Will you learn from them?
This is a two way street. Bring your own questions..... what is the culture like? Is it a place for innovation? Does it encourage contributions or is it a place that tells you what to do and how to do it?.
Think of a time you were very happy and fulfilled at work, Time flew, you were in the zone.....what were the circumstances that gave rise to that?....can they be found here?

Good luck.

Mrs OBumble · 04-03-2021 10:42pm

OMM 0000 wrote: »

Are you trying to pretend management science isn't a real thing?

Here's a random example, but you'll need to pay: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/001088049503600613

This is a big area, and is the reason HR people always ask the same questions.

Management is certainly an academic discipline. I've never heard it called a science before.

And if "... improve the interviewer's ability to predict an employee's future performance from about 3 percent to near 25 percent." is the best it can do - that's pretty p*ss-poor.

ELM327 · 05-03-2021 11:28am

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

It also tends to result in workforces with little diversity. People tend to gel with people like themselves, similar age, similar gender, similar social class, similar educational experiences.

Group think is the end result.

That's interesting as in my team where we employ this process we have myself as the only Irish person. The rest are 3* Indian, with one Chinese and one Aussie. And we have a 2:1 male to female ratio, organically.

Interested Observer · 05-03-2021 3:47pm

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Management is certainly an academic discipline. I've never heard it called a science before.

And if "... improve the interviewer's ability to predict an employee's future performance from about 3 percent to near 25 percent." is the best it can do - that's pretty p*ss-poor.

You think an 8-fold improvement on whatever the control was in that study is piss-poor? Bizarre.

AndrewJRenko · 05-03-2021 4:28pm

ELM327 wrote: »

That's interesting as in my team where we employ this process we have myself as the only Irish person. The rest are 3* Indian, with one Chinese and one Aussie. And we have a 2:1 male to female ratio, organically.

What's the age range?

ELM327 · 05-03-2021 4:49pm

25ish to late 40s

AndrewJRenko · 05-03-2021 6:01pm

ELM327 wrote: »

25ish to late 40s

There you go.

ari101 · 05-03-2021 6:17pm

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

There you go.

I worked in companies where HR/management did the hiring with no 'meet the team' and there was a lot less diversity than described here.

In a previous role all team members liked tea not coffee at breaktime, please call the diversity police

Interested Observer · 05-03-2021 6:40pm

OMM 0000 wrote: »

If you've worked for a tech company you probably know a lot of the managers do not have a business or management background (e.g. no MBA). So they are making things up instead of doing things the proper way. Hence "let's get the programmers to group interview people!"

I'm cherry picking a point from your post, but I have worked in a tech company and I have worked in a tech company for a manager with an MBA.

They were, unequivocally, the worst manager I have ever had in a professional environment. I am not sure there was a single KPI you could point to that was successful. As we're talking about hiring, our team did hire some decent people but there was about 120% turnover in the space of about 18 months in the team so doesn't really matter very much at that rate.

JustAThought · 11-03-2021 10:40am

Some people fit better into an existing team, some companies have policies that allow others to be a part of the hire process but their input is really just a box ticking exercise unless there are huge red flags raised. I had 6 interviews with a major tech firm - and with another firm that was IDA funded & US HQ’d had so many I queried what i could possibly add to everything I had already given - I was told it was to accommodate a different corporate structure & hiring philosophy and to just repeat what I’d already repeated that I was saying & doing all the right things. (I was much younger & more naieve then!).

It also spreads the risk - if the person being recruited turns out to be a total psycho or absolute disasterous non-fit or if the lead recruiter does not have the technical speciality to ask the key questions needed for the team ( transplant surgery, or specialised programming etc) then the manager has a chance to check key skills needed in advance of a contract being offered.

I’d go with it and take it seriously - these people are the final step to your new career and success - they are important to & I would confirm to what the company wants ( they’ll be calling the shots in the future too and expect you to oblige)

A friend of mine went for a meet the team thing in a big brand company - it was quite a high powered rile and they were to have drinks with the sales team & admin staff and be shoen the building and offices informally - they larked about,
drank too much, were a bit offhand and dismissive and were fired before they started.

Take it seriously, give the people their dignity and go!! New job around the corner!!

ELM327 · 11-03-2021 10:46am

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

There you go.

What, a 15 year age range across a 30 year working career?
Does that support your point?

ulster · 11-03-2021 10:55am

Having a good laugh at some of the replies in here.

Meet the team is a normal interview stage in tech interviews for US companies.

To be honest I find these ones the least annoying because you get a chance to interact with the team and make a good impression. I find if you're asking questions early on about the tech they use and their process and are genuinely interested in them, it makes the interview a lot less formal.

AngryLips · 11-03-2021 11:08am

This is an interesting discussion but it reflects the importance of this advice I was once given: as a candidate you should always ensure you seek clarity on the full end-to-end recruitment process faced by a successful candidate for that role, and you should do this in advance of your first steps in the recruitment process. Once you get that outline of the process, you can use it to push back against further steps not included in the outline. Let's face it, do you really want to work for a company that can't make up their minds on a candidate after three or four interviews? Should you really have to go through five rounds of interviews to get a job? MNCs in particular are guilty of trying to maintain a talent pool and will keep people engaged in a recruitment process for this purpose, rather than for success in the job they've applied for. I'm not saying that's the case all the time, but your time and effort should be worth something and people often forget that when going through recruitment.

mailforkev · 11-03-2021 11:19am

A good friend of mine has just moved to a new job that had 7 rounds of interview, including a presentation, 2 different HR interviews, and one of these meet the team calls. All over Zoom. Well known management consultancy type company.

Sounds like an absolute nightmare to me. Something not right if it takes that level of time and detail to make a hiring decision. I've hired plenty of people and value my own time too much for that.

Mrs OBumble · 11-03-2021 11:47am

AngryLips wrote: »

Should you really have to go through five rounds of interviews to get a job? MNCs in particular are guilty of trying to maintain a talent pool and will keep people engaged in a recruitment process for this purpose, rather than for success in the job they've applied for.

Indeed. In the recession in 2009/10, I know of cases where non existent jobs were advertised, and candidates called for multiple interviews, just to give the existing staff something to do while there was no customer work for them.

A great scheme for the employer ( real world interview training foe their staff), not such a great lark for candidates who spent time and money travelling to interviews with zero chance they'd actually get a job.

MacDanger · 11-03-2021 12:07pm

OMM 0000 wrote: »

I've interviewed maybe 1000 people and I generally know within a few seconds if I want to hire them.

Genuine question, how is this "following the science"?

Henrys Grimey Paws · 11-03-2021 12:13pm

AngryLips wrote: »

This is an interesting discussion but it reflects the importance of this advice I was once given: as a candidate you should always ensure you seek clarity on the full end-to-end recruitment process faced by a successful candidate for that role, and you should do this in advance of your first steps in the recruitment process. Once you get that outline of the process, you can use it to push back against further steps not included in the outline. Let's face it, do you really want to work for a company that can't make up their minds on a candidate after three or four interviews? Should you really have to go through five rounds of interviews to get a job? MNCs in particular are guilty of trying to maintain a talent pool and will keep people engaged in a recruitment process for this purpose, rather than for success in the job they've applied for. I'm not saying that's the case all the time, but your time and effort should be worth something and people often forget that when going through recruitment.

I agree with this, I've had an interview process that comprised of 3 rounds, a standard HR phone screener, a take home coding test that you needed to do within 3 hours and then the final stage comprised of 3 1 hour long interviews back to back followed up with a 30 minute chat with your potential manager.

That was nearly 8 hours of my life invested in the interview process, didn't get the job and the feedback indicated I had lost out on my system design interview which was the last one of the day when I was flagging.

I don't disagree with their feedback in general but there's a lot of hoops to jump through to get over the line, seems to be a general issue in software engineering that getting through the interview process is harder than the actual job on the other side

OMM 0000 · 11-03-2021 12:47pm

MacDanger wrote: »

Genuine question, how is this "following the science"?

Yes, it is 100% following the science...

No, it is based on my (unscientific) life experience that I can read people almost immediately. HOWEVER obviously during the interview if they say something disturbing or impress me then all that changes.

Let me try to explain this with an example.

You're at a party and don't know anyone. There's a group of people talking. Someone says something in a way which makes you immediately like them. You think "I could definitely hang out with that person". Later on you discover they're a terrible drunk and attacked someone.

So, within a few seconds you were thinking you could be friends with that person, but after learning more information you changed your mind.

Do you know what I mean?

I know a lot of people share this opinion about interviews.

For the record I do very casual interviews and generally give people a chance. It is up to them to lose my trust. I certainly do not get my team to interview them as half of them are virgins and are scared to even say hello.

“meet the team” interview

Comments