Bsrgvty

During phone screens, and the entire interview process, both candidate and company are trying to show themselves in a positive light.

If the manager says

"40-45. There probably are some people who do exactly 40"

... the literal meaning is "everyone works overtime as far as I know".

Assume that this is a positive spin on the actual situation.

I asked point-blank if it's 40 hours a week

Good job being direct.

(I'm not at all interested in a job that's over 40 hours a week.)

If that's the case, this isn't the job for you.

There are employers out there who will say "we do not want you to work overtime; we value your long-term happiness and productivity more than your short-term output." Keep looking and asking direct questions as you did here, and you'll find one of them.

An interview is a chance for the interviewer and interviewee to find out if the applicant is suitable for the job and if the job is suitable for the applicant.

If you had failed to answer technical questions to their satisfaction, they would not proceed further (as you would not seem like a good fit).

Likewise, you have conditions you consider essential for the job (you mention not wanting to work more than 40 hours) and they could not tell you that those conditions will be met. As such, you should consider yourself under no obligation to continue with the interview process.

You're currently employed, and since you're in the interview stage with three companies your skills are clearly in demand. Take your time and find a job that's right for you. You don't need to jump at every opportunity.

I completely agree with a lot of the good advice here, but I wanted to add to the answers here since I found myself in this exact situation recently.

Similarly, the VP of Engineering at a company I applied to called me out of the blue and started hitting me with technical questions. After being satisfied with my responses, he let me ask a few questions all of which were very similar to yours. He could not tell me what exactly I would be working on. He gave a pay estimate that was much lower than market rate and the required hours were questionable. If this was the only interaction with this company, I would certainly have not taken the job.

I continued with the interview process which included another phone interview with a manager and an on site interview with two other managers, a senior engineer and the president of the company. During these conversations, I learned that this company had the most important benefits and opportunities I was looking for at this stage of my career and I ended up taking the job. Almost everything the VP of Engineering said turned out to be different once I continued the interview process and it turns out he is the only bad egg at the company.

If you have the time, continue the interview process and learn more about the company. One short phone call is not enough information to make an informed decision about something that will take up such a large portion of your time. At the end of the day you need to trust your gut and remember you are gathering valuable information about this company during each interaction with them and that will drive your decision to take or pass on this company.

Simply remember that, as we like to stress around here, interviews go both ways. Then read Joel Spolsky's – co-founder and CEO of stackoverflow – article The Guerrilla Guide to Interviewing and invert the roles.

So in the referenced article, the candidate might be a developer, but you should switch the roles in your head.

The trick is telling the difference between the superstars and the maybes, because the secret is that you don’t want to hire any of the maybes. Ever.

[...]

Why am I so hardnosed about this? It’s because it is much, much better to reject a good candidate than to accept a bad candidate. A bad candidate will cost a lot of money and effort and waste other people’s time fixing all their bugs. Firing someone you hired by mistake can take months and be nightmarishly difficult, especially if they decide to be litigious about it. In some situations it may be completely impossible to fire anyone. Bad employees demoralize the good employees. And they might be bad programmers but really nice people or maybe they really need this job, so you can’t bear to fire them, or you can’t fire them without pissing everybody off, or whatever. It’s just a bad scene.

_{[Emphasis and omission mine]}

As you are looking for full-time employment, you can only accept one job. Imagine you could only hire one employee! You should be even more wary than the article insists.
Think about it: How much effort will it take you to change jobs once you realize you don't want to continue working there?

In my eyes, the very fact that you are posting here is already a red meta flag.

Red flags are really difficult to act upon proportionally. I agree with the accepted answer that fundamentally, you've got to trust your gut feelings about things that might be very negative aspects of work culture for you.

But I also think you have to be extremely methodical and try to resist over-reacting to perceived red flags. It's about weighing opportunity cost vs risk. The opportunity cost is that turning this down may be turning down a job you'd actually enjoy. The risk is obviously how likely that is to be the case.

As a general framework, I'd suggest thinking about red flags having a couple of dimensions, with respect to the person you get them from.

• proximity - how closely will you work with this individual? Both physical and in terms of work overlap. Are they sitting on the desk next to you or on a different floor? Will you have to collaborate with them on a daily basis? Weekly? Monthly? Will the way they do their job materially affect the way you have to do yours, or are you entirely independent of them?




• seniority - how much influence does this person have on company agenda and culture. Can they make decisions and change things in future, or not? Can they hire and fire, or not? Are they in a critical role for the success/failure of the company overall, or is the influence of their actions and working style more narrow?

Draw these dimensions out, then the bigger the volume, the more risky the red flag is

High proximity, low seniority = pretty risky

Someone who will be your peer, is in your team and will sit next to you. If you get a red flag that you will have difficulty working with this person, this is pretty risky and it's reasonably likely this will affect your enjoyment of the job.

Low proximity, medium seniority = not really risky

A middle manager in another function that's located across the office. They can hire and fire people, have the ear of the board regarding their function's operations and people, and set the agenda for people who work in that function. But as far as you can see, they have no connection to your function and you'll interact with them, and their reports, rarely. If you get a red flag that this person pushes unreasonable expectations onto their reports, it's not really risky - it likely won't affect your job at all.

High proximity, high seniority = hugely risky

The extreme case. A board member who's head of your function, and who you'll be reporting into directly on a daily basis. They have full control of your agenda, they have full authority to fire you or shuffle your team or your position around, and you'll have to make yourself accountable to their expectations every single day. If you get a red flag that this person will expect you to work evenings and weekends regularly to meet output expectations that are well above what you can achieve in 40 hours a week, it's hugely risky, essentially certain, that you will not enjoy or do well in this job.

Whilst these are fun to come up with and I could go on, I'm sure I've made my point.

In your specific case, it looks like you have a situation of medium proximity, high seniority. Which means that red flag that the expected working hours will be above what you want is very risky and will likely turn out to be the case. More likely than not, it will be a good decision to trust this red flag and walk away.

I mostly agree with the other answers. However, there is one factor I think is important that may be overlooked here. Depending on the company size, a VP of Engineering has very little to do with the day-to-day of an employee's work. My VP never sees my timecard or even my manager's timecard. He has personally expected us to work overtime exactly once in the 12 years I've worked here, and that was a truly exceptional "we might lose our biggest customer" kind of circumstance. He only has a vague idea of our team sizes. He is setting policies and priorities for hundreds of employees, and has only a high-level overview of how those policies are actually put into practice at my level.

Personally, I would wait to completely dismiss what might be a great opportunity until you speak to someone closer to the trenches. Your description didn't scream "evasive" to me. It felt more like he just plain wasn't the right person to ask those particular questions.