How Would You Move Mount Fuji?

adamba writes: "Why are manhole covers round?" "How many gas stations are there in the United States?" "How would you design a remote control for venetian blinds?" "What company is famous for interview questions like those?" You might not know the answer to the first three questions, but you probably know the last one. The notion of asking "Microsoft interview questions," quick logic puzzles and brainteasers, has become accepted wisdom for many technology companies. In comparison, the questions asked during traditional interviews, such as "Describe your typical day" and "What is your greatest weakness?" seem too simplistic, too easy to handle with a prepared answer, too prone to allowing weak candidates to slip through: they simply don't reveal enough about the person. While the Microsoft questions appear to be a better way to evaluate people, the issue has never really been seriously examined. Microsoft's success would seem to make the argument pointless: Can $250 billion in market capitalization be wrong?" Read on for an interesting look at the details and justifications for this kind of interview.

How Would You Move Mount Fuji? Microsoft's Cult of the Puzzle
author	William Poundstone
pages	288
publisher	Little Brown & Company
rating	9
reviewer	Adam Barr
ISBN	0316919160
summary	The scoop on Microsoft interviews--with answers!

Now comes a new book, How Would You Move Mount Fuji? Microsoft's Cult of the Puzzle - How the World's Smartest Company Selects the Most Creative Thinkers by science writer William Poundstone. Poundstone talked to various people who have been involved in Microsoft hiring, including those who were interviewed, and those who gave interviews (full disclosure: I worked at Microsoft for ten years and was one of the people he talked to). He includes a lengthy list of questions, and most interestingly for many people, he also includes answers.

In the book, Poundstone traces the origins of this type of question, providing some fascinating information on the history of intelligence testing. He then chronicles how a certain type of puzzle interview caught on in the high-tech industry. Microsoft was not the first company to ask such questions, but it certainly popularized it.

Poundstone explains that responding to a problem you can't solve could be thought of as the fundamental problem in Artificial Intelligence (AI), and then continues,

"The problems used in AI research have often been puzzles or games. These are simpler and more clearly defined than the complex problems of the real world. They too involve the elements of logic, insight, and intuition that pertain to real problems. Many of the people at Microsoft follow AI work closely, of course, and this may help to explain what must strike some readers as peculiar--their supreme confidence that silly little puzzles have a bearing on the real world."

It could be--or maybe Microsoft employees assume that since they were hired that way, it's a great way to hire (and complaints from those who were not hired are just sour grapes). Most developers I knew thought of AI as a pretty academic discipline, and were more concerned with putting a dialog box up at the right location on the screen than trying to pass the Turing Test.

Nevertheless, as companies seek to emulate Microsoft, the questions have caught on elsewhere. And as Poundstone put it, such questions have now "metastasized" to other industries, such as finance.

This makes the effectiveness of these questions an important issue. Poundstone first presents evidence that "Where do you see yourself in five years" and "What are you most proud of" are fairly pointless questions. In one experiment he describes, two trained interviewers conducted interviews with a group of volunteers. Their evaluations were compared to those of another group who saw a fifteen second video of the interview: the candidate entering the room, shaking hands, and sitting down. The opinions correlated strongly; in other words, when you are sitting in an interview telling the interviewer what you do on your day off and what the last book you read was, the interviewer has already made up his or her mind, based on who knows what subjective criteria. As Poundstone laments, "This would be funny if it weren't tragic."

Puzzle interviews could hardly be worse than that, but it turns out the evidence that they are better is doubtful. Poundstone shows how intelligence tests are on very dubious scientific standing, and points out that Microsoft's interviews are a form of IQ test, even though Microsoft does not admit that publicly. In his 1972 book of puzzles Games for the Superintelligent, Mensa member James Fixx wrote, "If you don't particularly enjoy the kinds of puzzles and problems we're talking about here, that fact alone says nothing about your intelligence in general". Yet virtually every Microsoft employee accepts the "obvious" rationale, that only people who do well in logic puzzles will do well at Microsoft.

There is another important point about puzzle-based interviews: although you would think that they were naturally more objective than traditional interviews--more black or white, right or wrong, and therefore less subject to interpretation by the interviewer--in fact, interviewers' evaluation of answers can be extremely subjective. Once you have formed your impression of a candidate from the enter/handshake/sit-down routine at the start of the interview, it is easy to rationalize a candidate's performance in an interview, either positively or negatively. They needed a bunch of hints to get the answer? Sure, but they were just small hints and it's a tough problem. They got the correct answer right away? No fair, they must have seen it before.

Given the ease with which the answers to logic puzzles can be spun, it is highly probable that Microsoft interviewers are also making fifteen-second judgements of candidates, without even realizing it.

Three years ago Malcolm Gladwell wrote a New Yorker article about job interviews called The New-Boy Network. Gladwell quotes much of the same research as Poundstone, and relates the story of Nolan Myers, a Harvard senior who is being recruited by Tellme and Microsoft. He has done a one-hour interview with Hadi Partovi of Tellme, and spoken to Gladwell, the author, in a coffee shop for about ninety minutes. His initial interaction with Microsoft was much briefer: he asked Steve Ballmer a question during an on-campus event, which led to an exchange of emails.

As Gladwell writes, "What convinced Ballmer he wanted Myers? A glimpse! He caught a little slice of Nolan Myers in action and--just like that--the C.E.O. of a four-hundred-billion-dollar company was calling a college senior in his dorm room. Ballmer somehow knew he liked Myers, the same way Hadi Partovi knew, and the same way I knew after our little chat at Au Bon Pain."

So Steve Ballmer, who obviously does not feel that he is choosing people based on traditional interviewing techniques, and in fact was one of the originators of the "Microsoft questions," is more prone to making fifteen-second judgements than he would probably admit.

The flaw, if any, may simply be in ascribing too much value to the puzzles themselves. The actual questions may be secondary: the company might do as well asking geek-centric trivia questions, like "What was the name of Lord Byron's niece?" That does not mean Microsoft is hiring the same people that an investment bank is going to hire. The cues they look for may be different: instead of a firm handshake and the right tie, they may be looking for intelligent eyes and fast speech, or whatever non-verbal cues ubergeeks throw off.

A Microsoft interview candidate will typically talk to four or five employees, and in general must get a "hire" recommendation from all of them. Even if the employees are actually basing their recommendations not on puzzle-solving ability but on a subconscious evaluation, it is unlikely that all of them will be subconsciously using the same criteria. Emitting the proper signals to satisfy four different Microsoft employees may be as good a judge of a candidate as any, and Microsoft may be good at interviewing simply because it tends to hire people that are similar in some unknown way to the current group of employees. If another company adopts puzzle interviews, they may discover that they are not hiring the smartest people, just the people most like themselves.

In the end, the best thing that can be said about puzzle interviews is that as a screening technique, they are no worse than traditional interviews. And there are some side effects: some candidates may be more prone to accept a job with Microsoft because of the interview style, and imparted wisdom about the technique may function as a useful pre-screening of prospective applicants. And of course, employees may get a kick out of showing a candidate how smart they are, although this can have a downside: How Would You Move Mount Fuji? has several examples of interviewers who seemed more concerned with proving their intelligence than in gauging that of the candidate. One former Microsoftie admits they asked candidates a question they did not know the answer to, just to see what they would do.

Two chapters of the book, entitled "Embracing Cluelessness" and "How to Outsmart the Puzzle Interview," attempt to help interview candidates who are confronted with such puzzle questions. The official advice is scarce: Microsoft's Interview Tips page advises candidates "Be prepared to think," which isn't much help, since presumably nobody is advising the opposite. Some of the recruiters who go to college campuses have their own little tips; for example, one recruiter named Colleen offers a quote from Yoda: "Do or do not, there is no try." Other recruiter tips include "Stay awake" and "Always leave room for dessert." Luckily, Poundstone gives advice that is a bit more concrete than that.

Microsoft puzzles can be divided into two types: those where the methodology is more important than the answer, and those where only the answer matters.

The "methodology" puzzles break into two classes, "design" puzzles ("How would you design a particular product or service?") and "estimation" puzzles ("How much of a certain object occupies a certain space?"--for example, "How much does the ice in a hockey rink weigh?")

Design questions exist because at Microsoft, responsibility for product development is split between two groups, the developers and the program managers. Developers write code: program managers design the user interface, trying to balance the needs of users with the technical constraints from developers. As Poundstone points out, while estimation questions and general logic puzzles are universal, the design questions are reserved for program managers.

The reason is that program management does not require the specific skills of development. Designing software is something any reasonably intelligent person can attempt, so the design questions are aimed at finding people who are really good at design. In fact one program manager I worked with told me that the best way to distinguish a potential program manager from a potential developer was to ask them to design a house: a developer would jump right in, while a program manager would step back and ask questions about the constraints on the house.

(Developers, meanwhile, are usually asked to write code on the whiteboard, an experience that program management candidates are spared. Books exist that discuss coding problems in more detail, such as Programming Interviews Exposed: Secrets to Landing Your Next Job by John Mongan and Noah Suojanen, which covers many standard programming questions and even includes answers to a few of the logic puzzles that Poundstone addresses).

Poundstone does include some of these design questions and provides sample answers. But the "answer" to these questions is really the process involved: ask questions, state assumptions, propose design. That's all you need to know about them. If you are wondering why Microsoft did not use this logical procedure when confronted with the question "Design a response to the open source movement," but instead seems to have spouted off the first five things that popped into its collective head--that's just more proof that performance in interviews is not necessarily a great indicator of future job performance.

Another recruiter, Stacey, gives the following interview tip: "The best interview tips I can give you are to relax and think for yourself. For a Microsoft interview, be prepared to answer both technical and problem solving questions. Ask clarifying questions and remember to think out loud. We are more interested in the way your are thinking through a problem then we are in your final answer!"

That approach works for the "methodology" questions: design and estimation. What about the other kinds--the more traditional brainteasers? For those questions, forget your methodology. What Microsoft interviewers want is the right answer.

James Fixx, writing three years before Microsoft was founded, offers some advice that may hearten potential Microsoft recruits: "One way to improve one's ability to use one's mind is simply to see how very bright people use theirs." With that in mind, we can follow along with Poundstone as he explains the solutions to the puzzles that the very bright people at Microsoft ask during interviews. He certainly delivers the goods: 100 pages of answers. Unfortunately, it's not clear whether seeing those answers help you tune up your brain to answer problems that do not appear in the book.

In his book, Fixx spends some time trying to explain what, as he so delicately puts it, "the superintelligent do that's different from what ordinary people do." For example, trying to describe how a superintelligent person figures out the next letter in the sequence "O T T F F S S", he advises people to think hard: "Persistence alone will now bring its reward, and eventually a thought occurs to him." Talking about how to arrange four pennies so there are two straight lines with three pennies in each line, he writes "The true puzzler...gropes for some loophole, and, with luck, quickly finds it in the third dimension." Further hints abound: "The intelligent person tries... not to impose unnecessary restrictions on his mind. The bright person has succeeded because he does not assume the problem cannot be solved simply because it cannot be solved in one way or even two ways he has tried." This advice sounds great in theory, but how do you apply it in practice? How do you make your mind think that way? As Poundstone quotes Louis Armstrong, "Man, if you have to ask 'What is it?' you ain't never goin' to know."

Poundstone recognizes that the flashes of insight that Fixx describes, and that Microsoft interviewers expect, are more of a hit-or-miss thing than the inevitable result of hard thinking by an intelligent person: "What is particularly troubling is how little 'logic' seems to be involved in some phases of problem solving. Difficult problems are often solved via a sudden, intuitive insight. One moment you're stuck; the next moment this insight has popped into your head, though not by any step-by-step logic that can be recounted."

During interview training I participated in when I worked there, Microsoft would emphasize four attributes that it was looking for when hiring: intelligence, hard work, ability to get things done, and vision. Intelligence was always #1, yet despite this, Poundstone says that the official Microsoft people he talked to would shy away from the word "intelligence", preferring to use terms like "bandwidth" and "inventiveness". Indeed Microsoft's Interview Tips web page says "We look for original, creative thinkers, and our interview process is designed to find those people." No mention of the word intelligence or any notion that interviews are some sort of intelligence test.

In fact, although I think that most Microsoft people would consider the puzzle tests to be mainly a test of intelligence, they may do better at testing some of the other desired attributes. Psychologist and personnel researcher Harry Hepner once said, "Creative thinkers make many false starts, and continually waver between unmanageable fantasies and systematic attack." Poundstone explains that you have to figure out when your fantasies have become too unmanageable: "To deal effectively with puzzles (and with the bigger problems for which they may be a model), you must operate on two or more levels simultaneously. One thread of consciousness tackles the problem while another, higher-level thread monitors the progress. You need to keep asking yourself 'Is this approach working? How much time have I spent on this approach, and how likely is it to produce an answer soon? Is there something else I should be trying?'"

This is great advice, not just for a puzzle, but for a job, and life in general. So watching someone think through a puzzle might be a great way to see how they would tackle a tough problem at work--the "hard work" and "get things done" abilities that Microsoft is also looking for. As James Fixx writes in the sequel More Games for the Superintelligent, "While the less intelligent person, unsure of ever being able to solve a problem at all, is easily discouraged, the intelligent person is fairly sure of succeeding and therefore presses on, discouragements be damned."

Unfortunately, the typical Microsoft interviewer is not looking at the approach to puzzle questions as a test of perseverence. Someone who tries five different attempts might demonstrate more resourcefulness than someone who just "gets it"--but they would get turned down. Interviewers who ask puzzle questions are probing the "intelligence" category, and they want the right answer.

The last chapter of the book is titled "How Innovative Companies Ought to Interview" and deals with a soon-to-be-problem: How will the industry be affected by the publication of this book? Will interviews still work if everyone knows the secrets?

Knowledge of Microsoft-style questions is already out there on the Internet. Since the candidates who participate in the interviews do not sign a Non-Disclosure Agreement, they are free to tell others the questions they were asked, and from these reports databases of questions have been built up. Poundstone includes the URLs of several sites, including Kiran Bondalapati's "Interview Question Bank", Michael Pryor's "Techinterview", Chris Sells' "Interviewing at Microsoft", and William Wu's "Riddles". These sites generally don't include answers, but certainly knowing the types of questions to expect can be an advantage.

Microsoft employees are aware of such sites. Once, when I sent email describing the questions I had asked a Microsoft candidate, I got a nasty reply from someone else at the company: Didn't I know that the question I had asked was posted on a website of known Microsoft interview questions? On the other hand, with no official internal Microsoft list of questions, some employees are undoubtedly using these sites to come up with material. Even within Microsoft there is debate about which questions are reasonable. In an unscientific survey I took of former Microsoft program managers, opinion was divided on the validity of some of the questions. A question described by one person as a good test of a candidate's ability was dismissed by another as foolish.

Poundstone does point out that some questions are silly and should not be asked ("Define the color green"), but he gives serious answers to others which I don't think are worthwhile either, including "If you could remove any of the fifty U.S. states, which would it be?" and "How do they make M&Ms?" Furthermore, I would argue that if an entire class of questions can be "tainted" by How Would You Move Mount Fuji?, they don't deserve to be asked in the first place. Estimation questions might be invalidated by the revelation that the way to solve them was to multiply together a bunch of wild guesses. The strategy of using a design question to to differentiate program management candidates from developer candidates might also go the way of the dodo. Is that necessarily a bad thing?

How Would You Move Mount Fuji? is worth reading even if you don't plan on interviewing at Microsoft. It has some interesting history, a few good Microsoft tidbits, and puzzles that are entertaining on their own. For those considering a job at Microsoft, the book may ratchet up the "arms race" of questions. Microsoft employees may assume that people interviewing have read the book--so if you are going to interview there, or anywhere else that imitates their style, you should probably read it too.

---

You can purchase How Would You Move Mount Fuji? Microsoft's Cult of the Puzzle from bn.com. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews -- to see your own review here, read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page.

Microsoft not the only one

[AutumnLeaf]

Lots of companies do this. I think Microsoft, again, gets too much credit here.

Brainteasers

[The Terrorists]

A bad idea, especially weighted against non-Western applicants for the same reason tests with cultural content are deemed discriminatory in the American classroom. You open yourself up to piles of lawsuits. Perhaps ETS should write PC vetted interview questions too?

Manhole covers

[Overt Coward]

Manhole covers are round so that they don't fall in -- the round shape prevents them from slipping down the whole if someone sets it down at an incorrect angle.

Manhole Covers...

[mattyohe]

That one is simple.. because any other shape would allow the cover to fall in.. But what about the others??

What kindof answer do you think you would say? What are you supposed to reference for the gas station question?

Does microsoft want me to say that I would assemble my blinds with the latest bluetooth spec and then controll it from my computer?

Re:How Would I Move Mount Fuji?

[AutumnLeaf]

But the spoon is not really there. :)

Dumbest question ever

[Ars-Fartsica]

"What is your greatest weakness?"

My answer - I have no tolerance for idiotic canned interview questions and the morons who use them.

Really, this has got to be the worst, most moronic question that can be asked. It really is a red flag that the interviewer doesn't have anything intelligent to discuss - you should head for the door. What's even worse are the moronic answers people give in a hackneyed attempt to make a weakness look like a strength - "I'm a perfectionist!!" or "I work TOO hard!!".

Then again, ask a moronic question and expect a moronic answer.

Re:Manhole Covers...

[Lord_Slepnir]

Actually, it's because when it's round, you can move it easier around construction zones...you can just roll it.

Perhaps these questions do measure one thing . .

[Badgerman]

. . . how much your interviewee is willing to put up with dumb questions. If they put up with them long enough, they'll probably put up with anything.

This is a statement made sarcastically, but now I'm not sure if I'm that far off base.

Not pointless questions...

[pubjames]

Poundstone first presents evidence that "Where do you see yourself in five years" and "What are you most proud of" are fairly pointless questions.

Having been an interviewer myself, I think I can say that these are not pointless questions. They show that the interviewee has prepared for the interview, and thought about the job. You'd be amazed how many people stumble when asked "Why do you want this job?" It's a good eliminator of unsuitable candidates, as good I should imagine as "Why are manholes round"...

Of course, not all companies can afford the multiple days of selection that Microsoft can put job candidates through.

Re:Manhole Covers...

[acm]

That one is simple.. because any other shape would allow the cover to fall in.. But what about the others??

What about an equilateral triangle?

In addition to that answer:

• the worker can roll a round manhole cover down the street (easier than picking it up).
• it doesn't matter which way you position the cover over the hole.

Re:Manhole Covers

[phsolide]

Manhole Covers are round so they can't fall down the manhole.

This particular answer always bothers me. Sure, it's simplistically true, but a whole family of shapes exists [psc.edu] that has the same property but does not have the unfortunate property of spinning in place. For example, assume a vehicle stops on a manhole cover with a (powered) tire off-center on the cover. When the driver presses the throttle, the tire exerts a force on the manhole cover that gives it a tendency to rotate. Instant loss of traction.

Also, other shaped covers could posses a flange - the manhole would have a smaller maximum dimension than the flange, preventing the cover from falling down the hole. Squares or triangles would require unreasonably large flanges, but octagons wouldn't.

My guess is that a variety of factors (shape of manholes, ease of manufature, ability to roll the covers) lead to round manhole covers.

Re:Manhole Covers

[arestivo]

In fact:

The Teeming Millions have pointed out at exasperating length that it's not an equilateral triangle that won't fall into the manhole but a Rouleaux triangle--the kind in which each side consists of an arc centered on the opposite vertex (or at least that's one way to do it). A puffy triangle, if you will. An equilateral triangle can be dropped into the manhole by positioning it so that one of the altitudes is parallel and close to one side of the hole (you geometry lovers know what I mean). A Rouleaux triangle, however, is a constant-diameter shape, and can't be. As usual, blame Little Ed. I'm not saying it's his fault, just that you should blame him.

From http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a1_247a.html

Re:Manhole Covers

[Glonoinha]

Manhole covers are round because manholes are round.

Re:Dumbest question ever

[ergo98]

I wouldn't call it a "moronic question" whatsoever: Certainly no worse than pulling a "brainteaser for dummies" out of the net archives, which is what the majority of "clever" Microsoft-like questions are. It's like being the Jeopardy host and smirking in self-satisfaction because you know all the answers...because you have them in front of you.

Questions like "What is your greatest weakness" can show a tremendous amount about the applicant, and is more of a discussion starter than a literal questions. As far as how the applicant answers, I can see definite downsides to "I'm a perfectionist" (meaning: I never finish projects because I'm always working on "just one last issue") or "I work too hard" (meaning: I'm a martyr and will likely have a serious case of burn-out several months down the road, not to mention upsetting the work apple-cart).

Any question at an interview, asked and interpreted by someone with intelligence, is a powerful question. Do you eat lunch? What are your career goals? What is an optimal work day? All of these questions can give great insight into the honesty and character of the interviewee. Personally I think the "Microsoft questions" are grossly overstated, and asking brainteasers most certainly didn't make Microsoft the success that it is (especially true to those that believe that Microsoft is more of a marketing success than a technical success. Personally I believe that they're a great technical success as well, but just pointing out the paradox).

Moving the Mountain

[teamhasnoi]

Easy. Just say "Mt. Fuji is in Wisconsin," until people start believing it.

It's how WMDs got in Iraq, the Patriot Act was written for 'patriots', the RIAA lost billions of dollars to piracy, and how Microsoft became the most secure OS ever.

Moving mt fuji?

[sporty]

I rather use the zen-ish answer.

One rock at a time.

There's a lot you don't know about the problem, so engineering such a simple question is virtually impossible.

Re:Microsoft not the only one

[tomhudson]

<quote>Yet virtually every Microsoft employee accepts the "obvious" rationale, that only people who do well in logic puzzles will do well at Microsoft.</quote>

Just like they accept the "rationale" that a 2-month refresher course in secure coding makes up for 2 decades of stupidity.

The correct answer for "How would you move mount Fuju?" is "I wouldn't - it's fine right where it is." This is meant to be more than a facetious remark. Too often, we tend to add a feature because we can/think it will be nifty/were asked to, without reflecting first about whether we should. This is the number 1 cause of bloatware - coders not putting our feet down and saying - No, you don't need that! It's stupid, badly thought out, and won't work anyway!

As a Mensa Member...

[ChuckDivine]

No, I don't usually bring that up. But, given the topic, I think it is relevant.

Yes, I do well on various kinds of IQ tests. I also have some real world accomplishments to my credit. To get a flavor of some of my abilities, check out my personal web site [att.net]. Some of it is serious, some not. The software side isn't fancy -- the point of the site is the content (words, pictures) not software. I have also done reasonably well in life. I make enough money to live indoors, sometimes do interesting work and have lots of friends. OK, I go in for understatement and I can be weird.

These sorts of tests can screen out the obviously unqualified. They also can offend those of us who are good enough for the job. I've deliberately blown such tests a few times in my life. Once I walked out without even taking the test -- the company made that bad an impression on me. The recruiter who set up the experience was surprised.

Hiring people is still a black art. Once you've eliminated the obviously unqualified, you might as well use some random criteria. Is there any alternative? Yes -- hire people who are already somewhat known to you. That way you get a fuller idea of what the person is actually like. It's easy (well, it is for me) to maintain an act for a few interviews.

These puzzle tests do test intelligence to some extent. They also help make sure that the person being hired is at least somewhat like the people doing the hiring. And are willing to put up with something the corporation thinks important.

Do such measures make me think well of a company? Not really. There are many things that can limit what you can do. Yes, a lower intelligence can be a handicap. So, unfortunately, can a dysfunctional corporate culture.

I don't think I would like working at Microsoft. Gates seems too much of an autocrat. Yes, it's nice to work with intelligent people. But it's also nice to work in an enviroment where you're reasonably free. I don't know how Microsoft stacks up in that regard. Their lack of innovation doesn't speak too highly for them.

Re:Not pointless questions...

[m00nun1t]

Of course, not all companies can afford the multiple days of selection that Microsoft can put job candidates through.

But they can afford having sub-standard employees? Recruitment is expensive, but cutting corners is REALLY expensive. A company, particularly a company dependent on intellectual property, is no better or worse than the people that make it up. Bad people = bad company. Complaining about not being able to afford spending a few days to get the right person is a very short term view. It's even more important these days with labour laws in most countries making it next to impossible to fire employees.

Re:Microsoft's Hiring Myth

[Anonymous Coward]

So does the unwashed programming masses that produce Open Source.

In the words of so many that have come before, the answer is:

"Software is hard"

It actually may be the most difficult engineering task there is and it is definanately the most lightly taken engineering task there is. What is the enevitable result?

Bah...

[darkov]

A Microsoft interview candidate will typically talk to four or five employees, and in general must get a "hire" recommendation from all of them.

This is lowest common denominator stuff. Your chances that at least one of them has a personality clash with you, finds you a bit threatening or other totally irrelevant judgements skyrockets.

Basically they're going to get the same guff that produce the same mediocre output that Microsoft does now.

Abstract and concrete questions

[Mundocani]

As a former Microsoft employee of five years, I was never much into asking brain teasers and always asked more straightforward algorithmic questions when interviewing candidates. Regardless of the type of question however, the questions really serve one main purpose -- to see how the candidate thinks under pressure.

I favored algorithmic questions because, like brain teasers, you got to test the candidates ability to reason but you also got some information about their ability to write algorithms and/or actual code. You'd be suprised how many candidates professed knowledge of an alphabet soup of industry technologies and languages, but had a difficult time correctly forming a "for" statement in C. Programming questions were also nice because once they were answered they lent themselves to further exploration such as optimizations.

I was never particularly concerned about anybody getting the answer "right" or "wrong". Interviews are tremendously stressful for most people and it's often difficult to think very clearly under such stress. What was much more valuable was observing how they handled that stress and the thought process that they used in trying to solve the problem -- what questions did they ask? What mistakes were made and were they found? Did the candidate declare the solution to be complete even when it was terribly flawed?

I think the most valuable person is one who isn't afraid to admit that he/she isn't sure and is willing to ask for clarifications. The scariest candidates were the ones who just plowed right in when they didn't really understand the question. I always assumed that I hadn't formed the question clearly (I wasn't deliberately vague, though that could be interesting too), but I expected the candidate to recognize that the problem was unclear and seek to understand it better.

Following up with questions about optimization was really nice since it really lent some insight into whether they really knew how computers and compilers make use of their code. Of course, being able to optimize wasn't critical to getting an approval from me, but you can bet that somebody who demonstrated knowledge of how to write tighter code got a stronger recommendation than somebody who didn't.

Best question, really

[Continental Drift]

When I interview a programmer, I always ask "Why are you a programmer?"

There is only one acceptable answer: "because I enjoy programming." Answers such as "because that's where the money is" or "I wanted stable employment" or "because nobody will pay me to surf the web" are indications that they will be bad or mediocre programmers. People who like what they do will usually do it well.

The reason Microsoft does this.

[LibertineR]

Manhole covers and Gas stations in not the point.

When these questions and other, better ones are asked, the first point of evaluation is the reaction of the candidate. Some will freeze, some will quess, some will actually become upset about the question. What is being gauged first is whether the challenge is responded to emotionally or logically. Whether the candidate knows the answer or not hardly matters.

Second; how and how QUICKLY does the candidate begin to work the problem towards a solution. If the candidate just quesses, he will be challenged about the answer to determine how he came to it. It is best if the candidate explains the process for breaking the question down into solvable chunks, or agreeable perameter assumptions.

At Microsoft, it is assumed that if you got through the phone screening and invited out for an interview, that you are smart. Brains are not in question at this point. What is in question, is how easy or hard it will be to get those brains working the way Microsoft prefers.

How agressive is the candidate towards solving the problem? How afraid was the candidate in getting the wrong answer? How did the candidate respond after answering rightly or wrongly? Was he sheepish or reserved, afraid to say anything else?

When I was asked these questions, I asked to use the white board in my future supervisor's office, and drew diagrams while explaining the answers I came up with. Major plus points. Microsoft is competitive in the extreme. They want to know if you can back up your ideas with force, and not be talked down because someone challenged you. What good are you to them if you are brilliant, but afraid to speak up?

This is why Microsoft gets a reputation for arrogance. Most everyone here is ready to defend their point of view to the death, until proven wrong. The challenge is leaving those battles on campus, and not bringing them home with you, which is all but impossible. Many great ideas get left on the table and forgotten, because someone lost an argument with a better debator. When that happens, you almost want to kill someone. I witness many occasions where discussions almost came to blows, and heard of a few that actually did.

Those interview questions are designed to find out how wimpy you are, how committed you will be to getting something right, and defending your point of view. Naturally, you cant determine 100% accuracy through the interview process, but it is a start.

Re:manhole covers

[Anonymous Coward]

I can think of other reasons that manholes are round.

1. When you dig, its easier,to make a round hole, rather than one with and edge

2. Structural rigidity.

3. When it costs so much to dig, do you really want to create unneccesary space, and seriously, what woudl they do with the corners?

Ultimately, its about the largest area for the least work. And if you seen the gentlemen that service manholes, (think butt-cleavage) You understand.

Re:Manhole Covers

[foog]

right, and manholes are round because

a) people have to fit in them (so triagular shapes are less desirable because they waste space)
b) it's good if they're easy to manufacture
c) they're made by the same people who make sewer pipes

etc.

I explained this in an interview once, the first time I got that question, and the interviewer was very unhappy with that answer. He got even more unhappy when I pointed out that not all manholes are round. There are rectangular access vias of different sorts, and these usually have rectangular covers (which are often hinged, which is another solution to the falling-in problem).

Although I agree the now-conventional "so they don't fall in and so you can roll them around, and hinges are undesirable on a street" answers are clever in an appealing way, and are true in their way, I still think I'm right. That is, I don't think they describe the real design motives behind the shape of manhole covers.

Needless to say, I didn't get the job. It was disappointing at the time, because I really needed a decent job, but it would have probably been a terrible place to work.

Re:Microsoft not the only one

[b0r1s]

Given Microsoft's track record with security problems, buggy code--such as infinite registration, and the famous blue screen of death, it's probbably not a good idea to ask Microsoft type questions with Software Engineering candidates because something isn't working.

Because remote root holes in sendmail, OpenSSH, apache, and samba, and linux kernel panics, are so much better than Microsoft's flaws? Sure, Linux never has a problem with infinite registration, but then again, they don't have any problems with registration, nor any of those ugly cash flow problems that registration would bring.

Re:Some of my interview questions

[LordNimon]

Ok, I'll bite:

• They don't. Endianness applies only to multi-byte integers. If a structure member is a multi-byte integer, then the layout of its bytes is endian-dependent, but that has nothing to do with the fact that it's part of a structure.
• Yes, if the destination (quotient) register is smaller than the dividend register. For example, if the divisor is 1, then the quotient is the same as the dividend, so it needs a register at least as large.
• Assume the instruction ANDs with register A and XORs with register B, and assume A and B are 8-bit registers (to keep it simple). To set bit 0, A=0xFE and B=1. To clear, A=0xFE and B=0.
• Questions that ask you to remember some obscure incident a long time ago are unfair. I've been programming for 25 years, and I guess that I've come across a compiler bug or two, but I can't remember that any more. If I thought that I really needed to give an answer, I'd lie to you. Do you really want to ask questions like that?

Cult of the Puzzle

[Embedded Geek]

"Cult" is the operative word here. I've never had the opportunity (honor? misfortune?) to interview with Microsoft proper, but I've dealt with a handful of companies that used these techniques and almost all of them did it poorly. There was always a conceit of "Golly, I'm so clever - show me that you are." This, despite the fact that the lame puzzle was recognizably pulled from a brainteaser book instead of being homegrown.

Ask me about structure layout, how to optimize a function, when and where I've used OO inhereitance to enhance a design and when it's a horrible idea to use OO at all. Ask me how I'd deal with an abusive coworker or a boss with a substance abuse problem. Don't waste my time asking about manhole covers and pretending your company is like Microsoft. You're not. Get over it.

It's reminicent of what I call the Hemmingway Effect. Ask anyone who absolutely loathes Hemmingway's writing and they'll immediately rant about the imitators who ape the original but do a poor job of it. Remember a few years ago when every half assed film student thought he was the next Tarrentino? Even if the original is any good (and I'll leave that an open question with regards to the folks in Redmond), the imitators are enough to turn mild dislike into full fledged hatred.

Microsoft didn't get where it is by trying to be the next IBM. Only a fool buys into the notion of being the next Microsoft. The puzzle cult is yet another example of this.

Re:Manhole Covers

[Jace of Fuse!]

Actually, they are round for safty.

If they were any other shape, it would likely be possible to turn them some degree so that the cover could fall into the hole.

Have you ever lifted a manhole cover? Can you imagine one of them falling on a worker?

Re:How-to find an answer in a haystack.

[Anonymous Coward]

Surface tension occurs ... wait for it ... at the surface. You submerge the whole stack and stir gently - the needle will drop and the hay will suspend. I assume.

Re:Manhole Covers...

[haystor]

The other answer is "because manholes are round".

Re:Been there ... done that

[bmajik]

Your apache question is useless in the following sense

1) tomorrow a new webserver that _smokes_ apache comes out. oops.

2) it is asking someone to recall something memorized

tne reason some MS interview questions are so non-specific is because someone MS hires today is statistically likely to be working on a different team and different technology within 2 years. Specific knowledge like asking how to configure apache is almost useless in an environment where you have no idea what you'll be working on now or in n timeperiods from now.

some people do get very specific quesitons like that - typically, contractors are brought into to do technology-specific projects. there is no time to train them so they have to know the technologies they'll be working with on day 1. the interviews are entirely different for them because there is no built-in assumption that they have to be incredibly smart and adaptable.

If MS were going to ask a question about apache, it'd be more like this

"You have a webserver that doesn't throttle connections. Explain how you would change it so that it would. Now tell me how the adminstrator would tune or configure the throttling algorithm you've come up with"

Followup: how would it be different for an ftp server ?

Your question is mor elike the (much maligned) MCSE test. "please repeat domain-specific knowledge verbatim from some source"

The directive for controlling this is obvious to anyone that is editing the apache.conf file. The question might as well be "where is the apache conf file" because its self describingly obvious, IMO.

Re:Been there ... done that

[Stalemate]

I was also involved in the interview process, though my questions would be more like, "What is the directive that throttles the number of Apache processes."

I've never understood these type of questions. Do you really want the person to be able to tell you that answer? Is "I don't know, but it would take me a couple of minutes looking through the config file or the help file to find out" an acceptable answer? Is it really that important to you for your employees to have memorized these things?

I'm just curious and maybe that's not how you intended the question. But, I will say that I'm a programmer and most of my co-workers think I have a great memory, but I would make no attempt to remember something like that when I can have the answer in about 2 minutes if I need it. Now, if I happen to remember it just because it sticks with me, that's another thing. But it isn't something I would try to remember.

Apache directives

[apankrat]

"What is the directive that throttles the number of Apache processes."

Oh, this is classics. The better question would've been "There is a directive throttling the number of Apache processes - true/false".

The answer for the original question is "I'm not interested in working for your company as you expect me remember some junk, which I would normally look up on as-needed basis". Duh.

Re:Manhole Covers

[JimBobJoe]

Isn't there something to be said about not having any edges? For instance, if a round manhole cover comes out of the manhole a bit, and a car goes over it, there are no sharp edges that the tire can hit, which could either damage it, or be a point of leverage to cause the cover to flip up in some way. The round cover may lift slightly, and then collapse back down. Eventually if it works its way back to it's happy manhole home, it will just pop itself back in. On the other hand, I believe that the other shapes, like the Rouleaux polygons, would be more likely to snap themselves up when hit by a car (at the cover's edge) increasing the likelyhood of damage.

Re:Microsoft not the only one

[jmccay]

How many open source projects that you know of use strange questions to filter out possible developers? It's not the same thing because most OSPs don't ask questions like those presented here. Instead, they wait for a developer to prove themselves.

VCR question

[grantham]

Someone once told me about a job interview he had at Microsoft. This was circa 1992. One of the questions they asked him was, "Why is there no eject button on VCR remote controls?" He was proud of himself for knowing the answer. "Because if you're going to eject a tape, you're going to have to get up anyway to do anything with it, so it's unnecessary." Microsoft was pleased with his quick-wittedness, and he got the job.

Two things bothered me about this question and expected answer. One, there are VCR remote controls with eject buttons. (My parents had one at the time, and I thought it was great.) Two, there are valid reasons to want to eject a tape without wanting getting up. For example, you may have just taped something really good that you want to be sure not to tape over accidentally. Eject the tape, and your chances of doing that drop. Also, many VCRs take several seconds to eject a tape (I don't know, maybe they're checking to make sure they're not playing it at the time). By ejecting the tape from the comfort of your seat, it'll be all ready to put away when you get up there.

This story, to me, explains a lot of Microsoft's behavior.

Re:Here's another Microsoft interviewing technique

[grumpygrodyguy]

Yes, these days it's best to do the following:

1) Post 3 job openings in a job search web-ring which is used by 100,000+ job seekers.

2) Collate the 8,412 responses to the 3 job openings

3) Spend 3 weeks finding the 7,000 or so applicants that haven't been coding for at least 10 years.

4) Have a meeting of the minds, let your 10 or so engineers sift through the remaining 1,412 on a big round table. Allow them plenty of leaway to reject candidates they don't like for whatever reason.

5) Take the remaining 300 candidates and verify that they have engineering degrees, or have at least twice as much experience neccesary for the job.

6) 150 left, verify those references.

7) 34 left, time for those phone interviews.

8) 10 remaining, first round of interviews.

9) 6 now, second round of interviews.

10) Ask obscure technical questions and judge according to how much they squirm.

11) Hire the 3 who squirm the least.

12) ...

13) Layoffs.

Re:Microsoft not the only one

[Lemmy Caution]

"It's already moving."

Something about it being Mt. Fuji does invite pseudo-Zen one-line responses, I'm afraid.

Re:Microsoft not the only one

[mdfst13]

It seems obvious to me (YMMV) why this kind of interview technique would lead to buggy code. These kind of questions attract people who like to solve odd thought puzzles in intriguing ways. The people who will show up best are those who will come up with novel solutions, because a new solution is inherently more interesting than a correct solution. This means that the kind of people who will perform best on this are those who come up with new ideas for existing problems.

New ideas for existing problems can be good. However, proven ideas that are known to solve existing problems are better. Why reinvent the wheel if you don't have to do so?

Perhaps what MS really needs is to come up with an interview process that finds people who can handle the boring and mundane, rather than the new and exciting. The kind of people who can slog through acres of code to find errors and inconsistencies.

In the article it mentions that the main effect of these kind of questions is to get a lot of people with the same mindset. Perhaps MS needs more people with different mindsets who complement each other rather than supplement each other.

Best way to hire.

[BoomerSooner]

Find a smart person with a good attitude. Train for skill.

Anyone can learn to do a job if they are smart, attitude is almost impossible to change.

Nonsense, here's why.

[LibertineR]

Consider how many companies, with arguably brilliant people, have been made to eat dirt by Microsoft.

There are downsides to Microsoft's competive nature, but that is easily outweighed by the positives. You lose good people; Brad Silverburg is probably the best example of what can happen if you dont know how to fight as good as the other guy; but overall, it is a huge benefit to know that your company is staffed with people willing to back up what they say.

Contrast that with companies like Sun Microsystems and Oracle. Each headed by someone who considers himself a "street-fighter", but staffed with pussies, unable to get their ideas beyond the boardroom for fear of taking a risk. Sun and Oracle talk big, but that's all. No one even pays attention to the rantings of McNeely or Ellison anymore, because what do they deliver? Both have great technologies, that they cant manage at all. What does it say about a company, when your most important product(Java) was a fucking accident? These companies can only talk about what Microsoft does wrong, instead of what they do right.

The most unethical thing that a business can do, is FAIL. I would rather work for a company that has the occasional fist fight, then the company that has the occasional retreat or ass-whooping, courtesy of Microsoft. Say what you want about Ballmer, but that man is the heart and soul of the company, and were it not for him, Microsoft would be a shell of what it is.

The "distructive forces" can, and are channeled into productivity; something Microsoft's competitors could learn from. Everyone loves to bitch about our company, but funny thing, no one seems to actually get around to shutting up long enough to beat us.

Look at Linux. Great opportunity, with practically NO chance of beating Microsoft. Not because there are not some very smart people trying, but because too many people would rather devote their energies to being pissed off about Microsoft, then improving their own products.

Sure, lots of good stuff falls through the cracks, but a lot less good stuff gets lost here because someone didn't fight for it. Sometime shit gets out the door too, only because someone argued well for it. Microsoft is the only company that I know of, that takes HUGE risks in developing new products. Sun doesnt and neither does Oracle. They just flail their arms and bitch about Microsoft, then go to court and cry when all else fails. You dont win customer loyalty that way. "We'll ship this, but if it doesnt work out, we'll just sue". Yeah, that works.

Like I said before, everyone working here is already pretty bright, or they would not get through the interview process to begin with. What matters in not being smart; what matters is can you be smart and kick ass at the same time.

You dont have to like it.

How I Would Move Mount Fuji

[Daetrin]

Wait five seconds.

...

What? You wanted it moved somewhere other than 15km down the earth's orbital path? You should have specified that in the original problem!

Re:Microsoft not the only one

[utd-blaze]

The correct answer for "How would you move mount Fuju?" is not "I wouldn't - it's fine right where it is." that is the correct answer for "Would you move mount Fuji?" Nobody asked if you wanted to.

Re:Dumbest question ever

[ergo98]

Remember that these were supposed answers to "what are your greatest weaknesses", so obviously if someone answers "perfectionist" or "work too hard" then clearly, if they are answering the question and not just lying through their teeth, they are weaknesses in the way that I said. If someone is so arrogant and personally blind that they truly don't think they have any weaknesses, or that it's none of the interviewer's businesses, then they could answer as such, but if they profess them as weaknesses then there definitely are negative connotations to them.

How about I judge you right now for posting what you did?

Be my guest! I'm hardly looking for you to hire me, and given that this is the best we have to evaluate and understand each other, of course you judge me based upon what I post. The same should be expected in an interview: Perhaps you are the smartest person who has ever existed, and is God's gift to mankind, but if you don't answer the questions that the interviewer asks to their satisfaction, then so be it. It's probably for the best if the interviewee thinks the questions are moronic that they don't get the job, as clearly they won't fit into the corporate or social culture of the job anyways.

Re:Nonsense, here's why.

[jdbo]

Something that concerns me about the model you describe (which could be primarily a matter of my reading, or something that you glossed over to focus on your main point, so please correct me if necessary).

It would appear that combative individualism is very ingrained into the coporate culture at MS - what about balancing behaviors, such as cooperation, constructive compromise, and reflection/reconsideration?

My concern is that the "be smart and kick ass" culture you describe seems destined to find locally optimal solutions (by imposing win-all/lose-all decisions on the work process), versus driving (groups) towards globally optimal solutions that may require both sides in an argument to acknowledge that they don't have all the answers, in order to work towards the actual better answer.

Another way to look at this is - how does MS deal with failure, a the individual/group/corporate level? In partic., are failures seen as something to build on, or are they left behind?

I'd be very interested to hear about the MS culture/process in relation to these questions.

Great question.

[LibertineR]

I'll try to answer as best I can, but understand that these are my opinions, and others might have a different take.

I'll be honest, and admit that those "balancing behaviors" are pretty much in short supply at Microsoft, although effort towards them does exist. There is very little compromise going on that I can see, but I dont see that as a negative. Products like M.E.and NT4 were the result of too much compromise.

The worst thing someone can do is to pretend to know something when they dont, because it's always too late when it's found out. Therefore, people ask a lot of questions, and try to keep a good reputation. Having a bad rep is the single worst thing, and impossible to recover from.

On a group level, failure is usually a management issue; post-mortems are routine to prevent it happening again for the same reason. People usually quit, before having the chance to be fired. It is really easy to find out if you suck, and need to go. You wont have to wonder.

From a corporate perspective, it's really just herding cats, no matter what people will tell you. You cant control large groups of smart people, they will either fuck up or succeed in spectacular fashion. If assumptions are correct, things go fine. If not; = Microsoft Bob.

Bottom line; competition works to find the people best able to fulfill company goals, not so much to find the very best solution. This works, because the best solution is not always affordable or timely. Market pressures determine whether you have time to be elegant, and you usually end up doing what works FIRST, rather than works best. That is just reality. Look at Server 2003. You could argue that it is what Win2K should have been. If we waited until now to ship Win2k, we would have lost market share. Win2k works fine, Server2003 kicks ass.

You are correct though. Combative Individualism is a very accurate term for what goes on at MS. Is it the best way? I dont know. It works better than the competition, that's for sure.