Interviewing the Interviewer: Questions to Uncover a Company's True Culture

I ask these indirectly.

    "What types of people tend to succeed and do well with your team?  What types of people tend to struggle in your team?"

(Am I going to be a culture and work/life balance fit?)

    "What are your main objectives in the next 6 to 12 months?  What's your plan to meet those objectives?"

(Do these guys have their act together and an actual plan? Is the work going to be interesting?)

    "How do you see the candidate in this role contributing to that objective?"

(Are their expectations for this role realistic? Do I fit those expectations? Do I want to be on that ride?)

    "Tell me about how the team collaborates and coordinates work"

(Am I going to be stuck in 1 hour all-hands daily "stand-ups" every day?)

I will share one data point that just popped to my mind, maybe it will be useful to someone.

About 10 years ago, my colleague and I were interviewing a guy for SWE role. He wanted to learn about presence of pressure, difficult deadlines and overtime. But for that he didn't ask about company culture, values, how our day to day looked like etc. He just clearly stated, that he does not want to work long hours, just 9-5, that it would make him unhappy otherwise and asked can we give him that. While also emphasizing that he understands this may not be possible and he does not feel entitled, it's just that he knows himself well and it's very important to him.

We confirmed that he could get what he wished for (we were in a position to do it), and thanked him for being open about it. He landed the job, and when I've seen him some time later, he looked satisfied, so I believe that the organization delivered on its promise.

I wish all of us such fruitful interviews.

I don't know what to ask, but I know who to ask.

A common SWE interview setup is that you talk to the manager and then a few of the engineers.

The manager will keep up a professional company facade.

But the individual engineers will usually answer pretty much any question honestly. Both because we're bad at lying, and because you don't want to end up working with someone when they discover that you lied to them.

It's interesting that most of these are bog-standard questions asked of candidates, simply turned around. If ChatGPT can do that, the similarity won't be lost on anyone.

Larger companies will start prepping interviewers what to answer, for any questions that aren't already covered in training.

It'll be a new ritual by companies that don't know how to interview, in the designated 5 minutes remaining after the interviewer clicks the stopwatch on the Leetcode hazing. The candidate can ask the standard questions to which no one should expect genuine answers, and the interviewer can recite the corporate-approved useless responses. And then the interviewer will literally check the boxes for which standard questions the candidate asked, and whether they asked that STAR format be used. (And someone who ruins an entire field, by defining psychotic interview rituals, and then turning around and selling candidate prep for those rituals, will then incorporate these checkboxes into the latest edition of the prep, guaranteeing that the ritual will be complete.)

I sometimes get meaningful, genuine answers to some questions about the company, I think partly because I tend to be candid, and maybe some people recognize and respect that. However, I think most people won't answer very candidly, if the candidate is reinforcing the mode by only doing what interview prep says. (For example, most people will realize that honestly answering what a company should improve upon, to any random person who walks in off the street, could get the interviewer fired. Why would they risk that.)

The thing to always remember is: the way they treat you at the interview is the best they will EVER treat you.

Do they ask if you need water, coffee, etc.? Do they give you time to use the bathroom? Do they keep you waiting excessively? Do they listen to your answers and look you in the eye, or do they keep staring at the resume as if they've never seen it before?

What they say is certainly interesting, but what they do is more so.

Assuming a multi-person interview process, where who you are interviewing with slowly goes up the ladder, one question I always ask (of each person) is:

- If you could snap your fingers and change/improve one thing at the company, what would it be.

The responses could be technical, cultural, about management, communication, etc. But this question has never let me down. If I a random distribution of different things, I know that - like any company - there's always going to be different things that people don't like (and that I won't like either). And I'm just asking myself if any of these are not a good fit for my personality.

However, if I notice multiple people all identifying the same one or two items, then the higher I get in the food-chain of interviews, I might pivot the question, calling it out:

- I've heard multiple times now $PROBLEM, what would it take to address it?

The best answers come from mid-level management. They'll usually be very frank about any cultural issues that prevent the problem be solved, but are aware of it. Regardless, the higher up I get, this one question usually has me knowing whether or not this is a place (culturally) that I want to be at.

> What’s something you think the company could improve on?

Interviews are serious business and if I'm in one I want to be hired; so I won't ask that. But there is a certain temptation to ask that as a counter question the next time "Please describe your greatest weakness" comes up on the theory that it'd annoy the interviewer if they were expected to put up with the silliness they make candidates go through. The trials and tribulations of being disagreeable.

In all seriousness though, this is a bad question for exactly the same reason as "Please describe your greatest weakness" is a bad question. You're only testing the verbal intelligence of the person your talking to and they are, without a shadow of a doubt, going to give a diplomatic say-nothing answer if they have any sense in them.

The author of the article assumes too much on the interviewers’ ability to deeply reflect on open ended questions, and clearly articulate the response (in a short period of time, because tables are turned when there is only few minutes left on the clock).

As a tangent, when I am interviewing someone, I try to find additional signals about the candidates communication skills / behavioural traits as well as their motivation in seeking the role.

Candidate: “how is this role going to change in X years?” Me (internally): This person is likely growth oriented, and their growth may have stalled at their current role.

Candidate: “How is the on-call load?” Me: This person may be burning out and looking for a place with some stability.

Of course, these are only assumptions and I try to be self-aware not to be biased in my decision by them.

Something I’ve asked in the past: “what is the one thing that the person hired into this role, if they did that, at the end of the year you’d say that was a great hire” seems to always catch people off guard and I’ve gotten answers that were almost wildly out of scope for the job responsibilities. When that happens it’s interesting to see their response when you point that out. Also huge red flag means the person interviewing you had no idea what they’re interviewing you for or everyone has a different idea what this role does. I ask this to everyone at every round.

I don’t think I’ve ever had a single interview that left more than about 60 seconds for candidate questions. Maybe you can tease some of this stuff out with the “hiring manager chat” as that tends to be less formal, but in panels?

What level/grade are folks generally talking about here? Or is this a difference between applying for a role vs. being hunted for it?

I think you can see the culture of a company already in how they deal with you. How they answer mails, how long you have to wait for answers, how bureaucratic they are, how they negotiate the contract etc. If nothing is possible to change in the contract, then there is nothing to change inside the company either.

There are not two companies, the recruiting-company and the working-company.

The way they deal with you as a candidate, they deal with you as an employee.

This whole model of interview is biased towards communication skills and that gets reflected in the culture of every damn company where no matter what you do it is important to be able to “talk”. Talk not in the sense of being objective but talk in the sense of being subjective , being able to influence , be liked etc etc.. it’s all understanble after all we are human too but it’s difficult for kids who grew up in the 80s and were fed with more neutral merit based and objective outlook of life.

A while back I interviewed with Meta. They have an “onsite” which is really just 5 hours of interviews over zoom. I split it up over several days.

After the first day (which I didn’t feel great about) I asked the recruiter if I had passed the interviews I had given, since there was presumably no point in prioritizing further Meta interviews if I already failed. But they refused to give me any useful information.

Maybe that’s just part of their “process” but let me tell you, that process sucks. If I have other interviews to prepare for, I need to know how much time to allocate to each role. Thats not the only thing that turned me off about meta but it stuck out to me as unnecessarily bureaucratic and inflexible.

The best advice IME is the old advice, 'when someone shows you who they are, believe them.' It applies to the organization.

If the receptionist and the person you meet are cold and disdainful, that's the culture. If they are compassionate and creative, that's the culture - that's the CEO, even.

Unless it's a special event, people are too busy, stressed, and weary to constantly conceal who they are, and they are usually not self-aware enough and too jaded to see themselves with any perspective. Even the professional con artists (which includes many business leaders these days) are obvious cons; even if you don't know the truth they hide, they are transparent about it - like someone playing Three Card Monte, you know they're a con and it's a trick, even if you can't figure out where the card is. Brazenness almost a point of pride for them, so believe them!

And you are doing it too; don't forget that. :)

Do these "uncover employer's culture" articles have any relevance in today's job market, where qualified candidates send 100s of CVs and don't even get an interview? Then if they somehow get that interview, it lasts 10+ rounds? After being jobless for months and basically going through a full blown proctology exam without lube to get hired, who's finicky to turn that offer down "nah, I don't think we are culturally compatible"?

The trouble with “interview the interviewer” is that you typically have, best case, 10 minutes left over to ask your perfunctory “any questions for me?” Just enough time for you to scratch the surface. If you throw hardballs, the interview will run out of time before you can throw many of them.

When I'm in the hot seat I use a variant of a set of questions I ask SWEs when I'm the interviewer. Those are "What's your favorite programming language? What do you like best about it? What would you change about it if you could?"

As an interviewee they become "What do you like best about working here?" and "What would you change if you could?"

being opinionated is now a dangerous game.

but those questions in the article don't make sense. your interviewers, go through interview training and are coached into giving politically correct answers.

just like you BS some answers in your interview, companies do the same as well.

no interviewer, is going to be like - this place sucks - we're slow moving, we're led by leaders without vision, there's a lot of internal politics.

everyone will tell you - this is the best place they have worked etc.

the reasonable answer to work life balance is to ask how long they have worked there - usually places with better work life balance for people that have families - not solos like us - tend to have good work life balance - and people have long tenures. YMMV.

best place I worked - before the usual tech grilling - I had an hour lunch with the team and the rest of the company. they got to know me, made me comfortable and I got to know them as well.

You are talking to humans. If there is dysfunction at the company, they are not going to let you discover it directly by asking questions.

I'm thinking back to all the places I worked at, unless the interviewers were being completely honest, there was no way to figure out the actual culture by asking questions.

The main things I'm interested in are:

- what is the scope/mandate of the team; i.e. would I be powerless in fixing things because ownership lies elsewhere.

- how close is the team to the business; i.e. do they have a good understanding of what matters and can they have impact on revenue.

All of this is ridiculous and difficult to pin down. If they are not ware of the problems themselves all they can do is report symptoms, then you have to work backwards and start guessing. If they don't want you to know about some details they are going to lie to the candidate, either on purpose or subconsciously. Often, the first few moments of silence contain the real answer.

The whole dynamic of employment is deeply flawed. Employees should have contracts. Without them people can say and do whatever they want after the honeymoon. Everything else in business requires a contract, except for employment so they can do whatever they please with the employee. An abusive relationship from the start.

I once interviewed at the London office of a US based company. The best part was when they took me to lunch... I asked the young American what he was going to do on the long holiday weekend. He said they have to work. Lol. No thanks!

One thing I've asked, which is kind of funny because as an interviewer you cannot ask me for HR reasons.. was "so what do you like to do outside of work".

In particular I only did this at 2nd/3rd round for jobs I was pretty sure I didn't want because the managers just seemed like hardos.

Seeing a hiring managers corporate robot brain go into "this does not compute" mode was confirmation I did not want the job.

If you are unable to even contemplate relating to me at a human level at that step of the process, and/or genuinely have zero interests outside of work - no thanks. I am not an automaton which consumers Jiras and outputs PRs.

As a candidate, I was asked once "tell me something about yourself that I can't read on your cv". I could not help but tell what was on my mind outside work.

I have used this question for candidates as well. I received responses about hobbies, families, quirky preferences... It's a great way to get to know someone personally. I imagine it works well for getting to know future team members and bosses too.

I despair thinking about this. I long for a world where I could be upfront about my strengths and weaknesses, then receive honest answers in turn, such that a great fit could at least be on the horizon. Instead, everything is saturated with game theory, HR weirdness, and the pettiest of politics.

I'd like to be somewhere that I work I can best do is what is actually needed, and that need is recognized.

As an interviewer, I tend to be very candid when the interviewee asks questions about the company, culture, role and fit. After all, if the candidate joins, I would be their colleague and wouldn’t want to start the relationship on a dishonest note.

When interviewing, I would expect the interviewers to be the same. If they are not, then that already tells me a great deal about the culture.

I just ask each person I interview with:

* "how's your work life balance?"

* "how often do you work outside hours? Is there an always-on culture?"

* "when is crunch time and what does that look like?"

* "what's your least favorite thing about working here?"

And then I watch their microexpressions.

If multiple interviewers have the same reaction, there's your answer.

I actually collect those types of questions here if you want more ideas (with translations) https://github.com/viraptor/reverse-interview

Unless desperate. It's always better to aim for a good fit company. Otherwise things will fall apart and so much work is required for resumes and interviews again.

Specific questions aside. I have for many years approached interviews in the mindset that, I am interviewing them, and this has worked out much better for me. Of course this is amplified by doing research and preparing specific questions to produce a more truthful image of the business and culture. However, people are generally trained to weed out "non-culture fits" and close on "unicorns", so nothing said in an interview should be taken as reality.

In many organizations, I've observed disparities between different business units (BUs), where some maintain high hiring standards and strong cultural values, while others may struggle with talent gaps or cultural misalignment, often due to factors like poor acquisitions or leadership gaps. What specific questions should I ask about the company, the role, or the team to ensure I avoid landing in a BU with such disparities?

Much better to ask current or past employees if possible. An interview is PR and the hiring managers know it. You won't get honest answers

And you just risk not getting the job

Why did my predecessor leave?

Helps to avoid DevHops companies were the tech debt rolled out to customers is sending the core team fleeing..

This seems to encourage conflation of the interviewer and their personality with the company culture. I have been an open, collaborative person in a cagey, secretive company. Thinking that place was similar would be an error.

Ratio of 'dev adjacent' to devs on the team is a good one.

These are all trash questions. Find a way to ask them about deadlines. Deadlines should be estimates defined by the engineer. Estimates mean estimates.

abhas9, I’d love to chat.

I’m interested in your experience with the Neat CSS framework (this is the first time I’ve come across it organically). I’m also curious about the testing you’re doing.

My email address is in my profile if you see this.

> “How is your experience working at the company? Can you tell me about the company culture?” ... If the interviewer gives a vague answer, dig deeper: “Can you give me an example of how the company culture manifests in day-to-day work?” This can help you move past generalities and get a better sense of what life is really like at the company.

If you are interested in what life is really like at a company, why use vague abstract concepts such as "culture"? Especially if the company has multiple engineering teams, and you are interviewing for one of them, it is quite possible that the "culture" differs from one team to the other. Why not ask something like "how does the team communicate on a daily basis?", "do you use practices x, y, or z?", "what do you expect from a new hire on this position?", "what are your most important values in the area of tech for which you are hiring?"

Senior Manager here who build up a career from being dev at agencies to overseeing 500 devs at a global large company.

All is speculation. Culture is a term that has no meaning. There are niches for everything everywhere.

We are all on a spectrum. If AI and ML reminded us of anything, than it is that there is always a spectrum.

The only question is, whether you are willing to take risks or not. If you have a boss, you live by his mercy. Bosses change, circumstances do as well, team members do, workspace and subjects to work on. All not in your control.

I think of my pay check in terms of punitive damage to a certain extent. High enough to stay? High enough to find out?

If you have a somewhat plan b worrying about culture becomes meaningless.

I saw it many times, there are no predictors. Slow processes? Fantastic people bound to decisions. Friendly encouraging folks wanting you? Crazy sociopath who forget about you, once lured in. Fantastic tech stack? Yeah, at the beginning.

So what do you do? Professional attitude that honeymoon means nothing. Money and options do.

There might be one exception that I used and that was bluntness. I told people that I look for people who care about professionalism. I told them, about what we are really doing, how our tech stack came to be and is managed over time. What our career model really is. Nothing shiny 24/7/365, but great devs with challenging technical objectives looking for similar people or others who want to have a more relaxed supportive function. Nothing wrong here.

I quite talked them out of the job so to say. Addressing mistakes and how you cope with them might be the only helpful predictor I am looking for.