Interview Questions You Should Ask Them

[noxibox]

If you have an objective PM/boss: Person A's quality/speed of work is better than Person B, therefore he gets more [insert reward here]

How do you measure speed and quality? So the more pertinent question would not be whether it is a meritocracy, but how they sensibly measure performance.

It doesn't even have to be 100% objective. If I'm rated as the boundary of the 90th percentile, instead of the 95th percentile, it's no big deal - I would still do way better than in a traditional
"here's a couple of percent for your efforts" company. If I'm rated as the median, where I should be in the 95th percentile, then management is incompetent, and it's just a bad company. If you're good (even with a sizablemargin of error), you want a meritocracy, if you're average, or below average, you don't. The important thing is that talent is rewarded significantly and slacking is penalized heavily.

Alternatively you think you're better or smarter than you really are.

Penalising is also a very dangerous game to play. Invariably counterproductive.

If somebody asks me the first question, the interview is pretty much over. It is a workplace, not a dating service.

None in other words.

You do realise that this generally clashes with most implementations of Agile development, right?

Agile development is and should be flexible. Use what works, throw away the rest.

im interested in what constitutes a deal breaker for you regarding work in tech.

But not the question you asked though. Besides how can you ask sensible questions if you either have a misunderstanding of what things are or a zealous devotion to particular methods regardless of the applicability to a particular environment?

 

[gkm]

None in other words.

Or the guys already working there are not willing to share.

 

[cguy]

How do you measure speed and quality? So the more pertinent question would not be whether it is a meritocracy, but how they sensibly measure performance.

No, the more pertinent question is whether it is a meritocracy. If it's not, it doesn't matter how they measure performance.

Alternatively you think you're better or smarter than you really are.

That's a somewhat out of context statement. What are you trying to say here? That people with overrated self worth will shoot themselves in the foot by choosing a meritocracy? Yup.

Penalising is also a very dangerous game to play. Invariably counterproductive.

Please explain to me how penalizing slackers is counterproductive.