I agree. Maybe it's a cultural thing, but if someone talked about a big multiyear project only in terms of I, I would see that as a red flag. Either they actually did all the work themselves in isolation, but that must be because they are hard to work with, or they are taking all the credit for work done by a quite a few people in a team.

If you get asked, multiple times, how exactly you yourself contributed to the project and you continue only talking about what "we" did, it is absolutely a red flag.

> "Even principal engineers socialize their designs and thinking with colleagues, making small tweaks here and there or gaining additional confidence to move forward."

Principal engineers know that there are appropriate times to say "we did..." and appropriate times to lean heavily into saying "I specifically did..." (while crediting others for their part, of course, but as briefly as possible) and they also know which one an interview is.

"We" may not be a red flag (I appreciate a measure of humility and recognition of teamwork as well) but it must always followed up by a question about the details of what the interviewee did.

It depends on the context - but each time I've interviewed someone, the "we" is important, but the "I" is important-er. It's almost implicit that everyone works in a team to achieve big goals, but the reason I'm talking to that candidate is to hear what they did as part of that team as that's what makes a difference to the hiring.

This is one of those things that's getting lost in the intention. I've been in an interview where I used we and the interviewer was fairly blunt in asksing which things I directly did, which I collaborated on, which I reviewed, etc. It becomes clear very quickly they aren't trying to figure out if you are sociable, but to understand what you do and do not know how to do. Shifting into that mindset it becomes easy to say things like "three person team. We collaborated on x,y,z. A and B were my primary responsibilties and I think my most important contributions were blah blah".

Yeah for me as well, it's just a way of recognising teamwork. If anything I would say it's the opposite, excessive "I..me..myself" can become a red flag in some cases.

Speaking as someone who hires, "I" is a huge red flag for me — it's a dead ringer for what is (in a very soft sense), a confidence man. Someone who's aggressively and artificially trying to project an external appearance of competence. I've had multiple bad hires like this, and it's now something I really watch out for.

The worst thing with guys like this isn't that they're going to deliver less than promised, but it's that the aggressive "willingness to lie for their own benefit" bleeds into a lot of other behavior at work.

I prefer using “we” but early on in my career was rejected at an interview because they thought I hadn’t done anything myself - now I mix in we and “I specifically implemented/designed/etc.”

Same. As a long time team lead/manager I always take the blame when things go wrong and give credit to individuals other than myself when things go right.

Someone constantly using "I" like they worked in a vacuum, and didn't play nice with their team is a bigger red flag for me.

The important piece in the interview is can they answer in detail the rest of the questions.

I should have been clear - I start my interview by asking the candidate to focus on their experience and every time they talk about what "we" did on a project I follow up with what specifically they did.

The imposters/charlatans (and weeding them out was the context for this whole thread) find a way to avoid the question.

>"Tell me about the most complicated projects you contributed a significant part of the design, implementation to, or ideally both."

Start with the problem they aimed to solve.

Probe for how they chose the solution, and what alternatives they considered.

Get into the details of specifically what artifacts they produced, and if part of a team what role they played.

Get them to describe the solution in technical detail.

Probe into trade-offs they had to make or compromises.

Ask what aspects they found novel or innovative.

Once they finish describing the system, ask if it was successful, and how they measured it.

If they were around after launch, how did they operate it, monitor it, what unexpected challenges they encountered that they didn't foresee.

By the way, all along it doesn't matter if the domain or technology they are describing to you is totally different from your own experience. A senior+ engineer should be able to explain their domain to someone equally technical in a different domain with some competency.

This verbatim can very well apply to many different industrial engineering efforts, regardless of whether there is software involved.

>This cannot be upvoted enough.

I agree, and I mean far beyond the message board.

> I naturally use “we” when discussing past products and achievements

Then you will not get recognition about what you did in the eyes of others. It is hard to trust someone who hides behind a group, because it looks like you have no confidence in yourself or what you did.

Recognition and trust have never been a problem for me. Have you hired at this level before, or merely assuming? As always there is nuance, as other commenters have touched on.

I have hired and been hired at this level and I have tried both approaches, one is IME far superior to the other. Any role which requires self-confidence is one where I would screen for candidates that are comfortable with claiming achievement.