Over the past few weeks, I've been managing the application process for senior-level engineering jobs at about 15 tech companies. I found Shopify's process to be one of the more baffling and bruising of all of these.

I applied online to one of the many job openings for remote senior backend engineer they had listed.

After submitting my application and resume, they cut straight to a coding exercise with an engineer on Hackerrank within a few days. Personally, I found this exercise to be pretty easy. Another engineer was there to guide the exercise, but she mostly just watched what I was doing. It felt a little weird and impersonal, but sufficient for a quick screening.

Then, a few days later, I received an email to schedule what they refer to as the "Life Story Interview." I met with a recruiter over Zoom for an hour. The crux of the exercise is to go over the work history in your resume, but to fashion it into a chronological narrative. What responsibilities did each position have? What difficulties did you encounter? What motivated you to transition to the next role?

I felt a strong rapport with the recruiter conducting the interview. As requested, I walked him through the narrative of my 14+ years of work and answered his questions honestly. Our session lasted 10-15 minutes over the hour allotted, and I was left with the solid impression that I did well. The recruiter did say at the very end, "Thanks for your honesty, it's refreshing!" While this could be a legitimate compliment, it also felt like a backhanded hint that I was too honest, or something of that nature. I really don't understand, because I don't see how anything I said was particularly negative or damning for hiring a prospective employee.

A few days later, I received a canned notification from the recruiter that they decided to pass on me for this role. I replied asking for any feedback he would be willing to provide, and I never received a response. That's par for the course in job hunting.

It's just that in most engineering interview situations, when you're rejected, it's pretty easy to reason through it as, "There was probably someone else who had more of the skills they were asking for," or "I probably didn't demonstrate some specific quality they really wanted." Those types of rationalizations don't feel particularly personal, and they make it easier on both sides of the system.

But there's something about doing a very basic tech screen that doesn't really explore your skills, then spending an hour combing through your work history, discussing it in depth, and really explaining your motivations, philosophies, and evolution around work, only to be rejected afterward. It kind of feels like being stamped on the forehead with "SORRY, WE DON'T LIKE YOU ... THANKS," which ultimately made this a weird, negative experience for me. In other words, I never even got to any stage where I could discuss my skills with other engineers or managers. I was rejected by the company recruiter for apparently not being the type of all-around person they want to hire.

It makes me suspect they are mostly looking to hire shallow people who play "the game." They're also probably spoiled for choice when it comes to candidates. Regardless, it's obviously not the company for me.

They asked me to go over each job block in my resume.

What responsibilities did each position have?

What difficulties did you bump up against?

What motivated you to transition to the next role?