There’s a deep, deep cultural myth here, that you work hard and please enough gatekeepers and *wham* you have now “earned” a job or a promotion or whatever. The only thing that matters is performance *subsequent to* convincing people to give you the shot.
-
-
Show this thread
-
-
I think of raising investment as a sales exercise in which you say “I have amassed sufficient proof points to materially risk your decision here but if it were not a risky one it would be irrational for me to talk to you”, perhaps less explicitly, and I think jobs are similar.
Show this thread -
-
Since that might be a little opaque: there is some percentage of Series A investments that fail and some much smaller percentage which become Google someday. If you are Google, *today*, it is irrational to speak to a Series A specializing firm for your capital needs.
Show this thread -
Similarly, if you and Hogwarts are mutually convinced you’d absolutely crush it at Associate Potions Master with 100% confidence, you almost definitionally should be interviewing for a better job than that.
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Ya gotta love this!
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Tangentially related, but I'm always shocked how few engineering orgs calibrate their interview Qs against their existing engineers. If your best engineers (or even your average engineers) wouldn't pass your interview, seems like you should know that.
-
In most of the places I worked the engineers were conducting the interviews for the permanent positions in engineering. So yes, all questions were “calibrated”.
- 3 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.