Reffem AI0:00
Good afternoon, Avery. Thank you so much for taking the time to speak with me today. As you know, we're speaking about Michael, who's being considered for a senior software engineer role here. We really appreciate you sharing your insights.
Reference0:11
Of course, Jordan. Happy to help. Michael reported directly to me for three years, right up until I moved to a different department last quarter.
Reffem AI0:18
That's perfect. Well, to start then, how would you describe Michael's work ethic and his reliability?
Reference0:24
Michael was exceptionally reliable, especially when we were up against a really high stakes deadline. I remember a critical API migration project last year. The deadline was a hard two weeks. And Michael consistently stayed late without anyone asking just to make sure all the integration points were perfect. That was typical of him.
Reffem AI0:43
That's great context. So could you provide some specific examples of Michael's key strengths and maybe just importantly some areas for development you noticed?
Reference0:52
His key strength is definitely his technical depth, specifically in backend system architecture, database optimization—just brilliant. Where he had some room for development was sometimes prioritizing technical purity over practical speed.
Reffem AI1:07
Could you elaborate on that? I mean, if he's optimizing something, why is that a development area?
Reference1:12
Sure. There was one time Michael spent three full days optimizing a single database query. And technically, the code was beautiful. It was perfect. But that query only ran once a month for a report. A quick 30-minute fix would have been fine, and it would have freed him up for customer-facing features that were urgent. It just showed a little bit of a disconnect from the immediate business needs.
Reffem AI1:35
I see. That really helps frame his decision-making. OK, how did Michael handle challenging situations or, say, conflicts within the team?
Reference1:44
Michael tends to avoid interpersonal friction. He's not a confrontational person. When we had a big disagreement with the design team over a new feature, Michael actually stepped in as a sort of technical mediator. Instead of arguing, he just compiled all this detailed documentation that showed, with data, the complexity of what they were asking for. He used data to resolve the conflict.
Reffem AI2:04
Did that require him to step out of his comfort zone a bit to manage personalities?
Reference2:08
It did, yeah. He's not naturally outspoken, but he saw that an objective voice was needed. And the document itself kind of diffused the whole situation so the teams could focus on a solution instead of being frustrated with each other.
Reffem AI2:24
Right. OK, next. Did Michael effectively meet deadlines and manage his workload?
Reference2:29
For big complex projects, absolutely. Like that API migration I mentioned, he was fantastic. But for the smaller, more routine maintenance tickets, the less exciting stuff, he sometimes needed a nudge to close those out after a big project was done.
Reffem AI2:42
So he needed a little more accountability for the more mundane tasks.
Reference2:45
A little bit, yeah.
Reffem AI2:47
Got it. And how well did Michael collaborate and communicate with his teammates?
Reference2:50
Within the engineering team, collaboration was really strong. He's great at asynchronous communication—detailed code comments, pull request reviews, very proactive on Slack. He was a bit less vocal in big cross-departmental meetings, tended to only speak up when asked directly.
Reffem AI3:08
OK. And can you comment on Michael's ability to adapt to change? A sudden shift in project scope, for example.
Reference3:15
Oh, technically, he adapted incredibly well. When our whole infrastructure pivoted from one cloud provider to another, Michael immediately took the lead on learning the new tool set. He didn't even have to be asked. He just embraces technical change.
Reffem AI3:28
What ways did Michael demonstrate leadership skills or take initiative on your team?
Reference3:33
Michael's initiative was very focused on technical growth. He noticed that our new hires were taking a long time to get up to speed. So completely on his own, he designed and documented a full onboarding curriculum for junior engineers.
Reference3:45
And that curriculum, I mean, it significantly cut down the time it took for new people to become productive.
Reffem AI3:51
That's a very concrete example of initiative. Did Michael display strong problem solving and critical thinking skills?
Reference3:58
Absolutely. When a mission critical service failed last spring—I mean, immediate customer impact—Michael was the one who diagnosed it. He figured out it wasn't our code, but a really obscure dependency issue from an external update. He isolated the fix and had us back online in under an hour. He's a true troubleshooter.
Reffem AI4:16
That shows incredible thinking under pressure. OK, just a couple more. How did Michael handle feedback and constructive criticism?
Reference4:23
Very professionally. After we talked about him being more proactive in those cross-functional meetings, he immediately scheduled weekly syncs with the product managers to make sure his work had visibility. He wasn't defensive at all. He just wanted to fix it.
Reffem AI4:37
Avery, thank you. These examples are incredibly helpful. So the ultimate question. Given the opportunity, knowing this role is very technical and back-end focused, would you rehire Michael?
Reference4:47
Yes. I would absolutely rehire Michael for a role that plays to his technical depth and his problem-solving skills. I would just also make sure that role had a project manager to help with prioritizing some of those smaller routine tasks.