February 16, 2025
One of the most insightful questions I ask in every interview isn't about the tech stack, the team structure, or the company's future plans. Instead, I ask:
"What do you hate about your current position?"
It might seem like hate is a strong word, but that's intentional. It evokes a raw, emotional response, cutting through the polished company pitch and revealing what it's really like to work there.
Most interview conversations are scripted. Candidates try to sell themselves, and companies try to present an idealized version of their workplace. Asking what someone hates about their job disrupts that script. It triggers an honest, often unfiltered reflection on the company's flaws, things employees likely vent about privately but rarely discuss in formal settings.
When I ask this question, I pay close attention to the response. The answer often uncovers real issues in ways that more neutral questions never would. Here are some examples of responses I've received:
A recruiter once told me this. It was a subtle way of saying that decision-making within the company -ironically, one that focused on optimizing decision-making processes- was flawed. This response aligned with online reviews mentioning frequent hiring and layoff cycles, as well as rapid changes in direction, all signs of indecisive leadership. If I were in a fragile position, joining this company would mean gambling on that unpredictability.
This is common in mature companies or teams that are hiring to replace a departing employee rather than to grow. Stability can be great if that's what you're looking for, but if I'm seeking career growth and challenges, it's a red flag.
While bureaucracy is expected in larger organizations, this response often indicates a deeper issue, management may not be reflecting on whether its processes add value. Some companies spend more time managing processes than actually doing meaningful work. A good follow-up would be:
This response can reveal a dysfunctional work culture. If employees ignore processes, it could mean the rules are impractical or that leadership doesn't enforce accountability. A lack of adherence to agreed-upon workflows might indicate broader issues, such as poor collaboration, misaligned goals, or even toxic work dynamics.
The real value of this question isn't just in what people say but how they say it. A hesitant, overly cautious response might suggest employees are afraid to be candid, a warning sign in itself. A quick, detailed answer usually means the frustration is genuine and widely recognized.
I don't just ask this question to one interviewer; I ask it to engineers, managers, and HR. If the same frustrations emerge across different roles, it's a clear signal of a deeper company-wide issue.
If hate feels too aggressive, a more diplomatic version of the question is:
"What would you like to see change in your workplace?"
This version invites a constructive response while still uncovering frustrations. It shifts the focus from pure negativity to aspiration; what's lacking, what's frustrating, but also what could be improved.
For example, if someone says:
"I'd love to see more recognition for our work."
That suggests the team is heavily focused on technical execution but isn't valued as a strategic partner within the company. It may indicate an organization that views engineering as a cost center rather than a driver of business growth.
No company is perfect. Every workplace has its downsides, but understanding them helps in making an informed choice. If the frustrations align with challenges I'm excited to take on, the opportunity might still be worthwhile. But if the responses point to deep structural issues that don't fit what I'm looking for, it's a sign to walk away.
For anyone navigating job interviews, I highly recommend trying this question. The answers might just be the most honest thing you hear throughout the entire process.