Ridiculous job interview. What do I do?

Do you need or really want the job? If so, this may be their standard interview practice (although a bit drawn out) and have to accept it.

If the gig is more of a "nice to have" you could respond to them that your portfolio is the repository, and that given their interest in you, meetings to establish personality fit for a cohesive team are great, but a coding interview seems unnecessary - in professional wording. Make the process work in both directions.

I believe excessive interview practices are a red flag. It can show a lack of understanding by the company of what they need, or worse a desire to "see how candidates do under pressure" (i.e. hazing) which can be indicative of a toxic environment.

Been in a very similar situation. They found me (probably by crawling Github/LinkedIn), reached out to me saying they had a role that was similar to the stuff I was doing in open source (which was true), but the interview process was to go through the standardized pipeline (4 1-hour sessions is pretty standard among big tech cos). I went with it because total comp was quite a bit more attractive than what I was making at the time and opened a path for further income growth for not just me but my wife as well.

I've recently entertained an invitation from a FANG recruiter just to see what they had to offer, and they agreed to skip the screener round and told me "I was already approved for an offer, from HR's end" assuming the second interview round yields good results (this was for staff eng level, if it matters).

My perspective on this: a lot of recruiters and tech leads use automation to find prospective candidates and they tell all of them they found their OSS projects interesting etc, but don't actually understand how that project translates in terms of coding ability on an individual basis (i.e. they haven't actually reviewed code to determine whether e.g. you're actually able to think algorithmically or are just gluing libraries together). That's sort of where the leetcode stuff is supposed to come in: by pushing you through the standardized funnel, they can get a better gauge for how you stack against other candidates. N.B: Whether that provides a good indicator of job performance at all in the first place is a can of worms of its own, IMHO.

My advice: weigh in compensation, career growth and job alignment to decide whether this opportunity is for you. If so, treat the leetcode stuff as a formality: if you have the chops, you should be able to pass with flying colors. The most important question to ask yourself is "what's in it for me?"

Don’t listen to all the middle managers on here telling you you should jump through hoops. This interaction now will set the precedence for the rest of your working relationship. I’d bring it up for a discussion with them.

reminds me of the homebrew situation

> Google: 90% of our engineers use the software you wrote (Homebrew), but you can’t invert a binary tree on a whiteboard so fuck off.

https://twitter.com/mxcl/status/608682016205344768

We've been having a larger internal debate about the type of leetcode interview and architecture questions we ask, and how valuable the signal is for testing something completely unrelated to our real work.

My two cents, the interviews here are going to help them assess how you work your way through problems, how you think and process, and how you communicate. That is a very valuable signal to get out of someone you're potentially going to be in the trenches collaborating with. That is the true value behind these route sets of challenges, much more son than "can this person code?"

We've hired engineers that have been absolutely amazing teammates in our department that on paper have had wonky technical interview questions, but it was because of the attitude and their approach in the moment that won us over.

They know you can code, they can see the OSS. The "hoops" here are for the intangibles.

In addition to that post:

1) They said they only "hire the best" (i'm certainly great, but not the best)

2) They bragged about how they have "more money they could ever spend"

3) They expect me to compromise my side projects and consulting activities, because "Series B startups are a whole different type of experience"

>In my head i’m thinking: “If their leetcode-engineers are that good why do they have rely on my open-source?”

>What would you do in this situation?

I would ask out loud “If your leetcode-engineers are that good why do you have rely on my open-source?”. Mind you I did that once when company I was contracting for wanted to hire me full time. They went with someone else with brilliant CV and ace whiteboard skills. They got in touch almost a year later asking for a rescue mission when nothing worked anymore, made more money contracting again than if I would work there full time.

How about you ask them for consulting gig instead?

Even four more 1-2 hours interviews is asking a lot without the tech hazing.

If I had to guess they have a ridiculous process and someone else who only had the power to bump you through to consideration found your open source work. At the end of the day though it depends on how much you need the work.

You forgot to mention the most important detail: Do you actually want this job?

> Then they go on and explain i’d have to do 4 more meetings 1-2 hours each, including a leetcode-style tech interview

Even 4x2 hour interviews is still only 8 hours. Let’s call it 16 hours, worst case, to account for the disruption and setup time as well as small talk.

Even 16 hours is only equivalent to 2 days of this new job. If you’re going to be spending 200 days per year working side by side with these new people, you want to take advantage of this time to see how they work, how they interact with you, and how compatible you are with them.

Potentially unpopular opinion on HN, but I don’t see this as unreasonable. This job could last for a long time. The interview, even with four sessions, will not.

> In my head i’m thinking: “If their leetcode-engineers are that good why do they have rely on my open-source?”

Because no company should be writing things from scratch when viable open-source alternatives are available?

Honestly, your post suggests that maybe you don’t really respect this company, from their use of your library through the fact that they want you to go through the same interview process as other candidates (important for accurate hiring decisions as well as fairness). If you’re digging deep for excuses to dislike them already, maybe you aren’t a good fit for this job.

Seems like a pretty standard interview panel to me - if you want the job do it, otherwise don't?

I, personally, draw lines about what I'm willing to put up with and what I'm not. When the interview process begins to resemble a gauntlet or even a hazing, I walk away. Why? Because they are showing that they don't respect the candidate's time and also they lack humility. They are unmindful of the possibility that the candidate could decide to go elsewhere.

Four more meetings at 1-2 hours each means between 4 and 8 more hours of interviews. That's definitely moving in to gauntlet territory. But maybe it's the result of an immature hiring process. I would give them a chance but if there are any more red flags, I would probably withdraw from the process.

Consider this a nice bit of validation of your work and maybe use it to renew your efforts in doing your own thing. The world needs more independent thinkers, but working for someone else might also be your jam.

Hiring in 2021 should be flexible. If they're not willing to be, then you have some different options. But since they went out of their way to contact you, you basically have the upper hand here.

See if they're willing to enter into a contract for 60-120 days. This is relatively low risk for the company, since a contract usually skews in favor of the company to terminate early.

Chances are they'll contract you and realize they can't live without you, so you'll be in a better negotiating position when negotiating a full-time salary.

> Then they go on and explain i’d have to do 4 more meetings 1-2 hours each, including a leetcode-style tech interview. In my head i’m thinking: “If their leetcode-engineers are that good why do they have rely on my open-source?”

Honestly leetcode is fraud detection at this point. I've seen "engineers" with good looking resumes who couldn't FizzBuzz. And a way to filter out huge red-flag (can't work with someone else).

> What: engineering manager writes me e-mail that goes like: “we found your open-source project and want to offer you a job”

If you want to offer a job, offer a job.

They seem to have confused “job” with “hazing ritual after which you might be offered a job”, which is...less attractive.

I get the need to filter an excess of applicants who come to you cold or in response to an advertised opening, but if you are reaching out to someone, whatever motivated you to reach out ought to substitute for several layers of filtering. If you are reaching out for demonstrated, job-relevant coding acheivement, leetcode style exercises are not merely wasteful and insulting, but also a sign to the prospect that your management is mindlessly walking through checklists rather than thinking through their actions.

Do you want to work in an environment where that's how things are run? Especially a startup, which has instability and other issues that people accept to avoid that kind of bigco blind bureaucracy?

    Then they go on and explain i’d have to do 
    4 more meetings 1-2 hours each

Just went through a job search myself and found this exhausting, but extremely valuable.

1. Got to meet my potential teammates, get a feel for if I'd fit in and if I'd want to work with them

2. Got to ask questions of my potential teammates, without management around. Got to ask them about pain points of working at Company XYZ, etc.

That said, "4 interviews @ 1-2 hours each" seems excessive.

I found the typical process was more like "4 interviews @ 1 hour each."

I know 4 hours is a LOT of time, but this is potentially a job at which you'll be spending years. Approximately 2000+ working hours per year. In that context I think it's not crazy.

If you invite me in based on my work, I'm not jumping through hoops to prove myself to you.

You should say this to them. Say you dont think that type of interview is a a good use of time in this case and state your reasons. Then propose what you think would be reasonable, or what you would like.

Most people in business seem to do things just so they look the part, eg. they do whatever everyone else is doing. Cus, in reality they usually dont really know what they are doing.

If they want you, and you want to work there, and ye are both reasonable, then ye should be able to work something out. If one or more of those things are not true then you shouldnt work there anyway.

Skilled engineers are in demand and every possible route is being explored to source them. Given the interview process requirement this sounds like it isn’t as personal as implied and that they are interested in your engineering skills versus your project. You might not care about that and seethes as a way in to paid employment in which case go for it. If not then respond to ask for some time to talk to someone that is capable of discussing their interest in your specific project before committing any time to interviews or prep.

Ask for the comp range they're offering. If the money is fantastic then consider jumping through the silly hoops.

If it's just average then tell them that your open source project is proof of your technical abilities, you're happy to do culture / leadership conversations and answer code-review style questions about the technical design of your projects, but that otherwise you're not interested in passing an arbitrary leetcode bar.

If it were a large enterprise who's idea of innovation is to do whatever Facebook does, then yeah, you can't change their processes and will have to jump through the hoops to get the job. It's also a hint of how work at that corporation will be later on.

Otoh, at a start-up, I surely would expect people working there being able to think for themselves and given that they like your code, a leetcode interview does indeed seem absurd.

It's just one negative on the scales, so it depends on what there is to put on the positive side of the scale.

On the other hand, I have to admit that in my own experience, the longer and more convoluted the interview process the worse the job experience. But it's not an iron law.

I like the book Crucial Conversations. It would say to be 100% respectful and understanding of their interview process and 100% honest that you're concerned about the length of the interview process. Done well, this should cause no harm and may help you.

Tell them to fuck off.

Offering you a job is not making you spend hours doing stupid leetcode shit.

If you really want the job you can go through it. I would ask them about the LeetCode interview. They really shouldn't need it - they approached you based on your open source code... that speaks for itself.

Yeah, but I'm weird. I'm almost social phobic in real life but I learned how to destroy job interviews.

Personally, I reject all companies that want to do more than one round.

Just tell them no you ain't interested in their interview charade. No is a powerful word.

>Who: Series B startup with ~$100 million in funding, me open-source developer

That $100 million isnt in your pocket. This isn't 100% reliable source of income. It might seem like alot but it's not established yet.

>In a meeting they explain how they were interested in using my open-source project and want to hire me so i could carry out a similar work for them

Sweet, i assume they want to use your code. Might try to be tricky and get you to sign your code away. Then fire you and keep the code base.

>Then they go on and explain i’d have to do 4 more meetings 1-2 hours each, including a leetcode-style tech interview

Kind of a red flag in my books. If they are coming to you, then it's the reverse. Like they should be offering you equity or something. I dunno. They need to win you over and bureaucracy isn't how to do that.