In my previous job we hired someone in a "Senior Architect" position. They had extensive experience at a larger company, but there were red flags from the beginning (including the interview, where they got visibly upset and melodramatic when they were unable to finish the algorithmic problem we gave)
Working on anything related to design and architecture with them was a disaster. They preferred waterfall over agile, didn't take feedback very well, was obsequious towards leadership but toxic towards the team they led, and would terminate collaboration with someone if there was disagreement.
The soft skills for an architect are essential, and I think that includes excellent communication skills, documentation, and ability to take feedback and constructive criticism. Needless to say, the coworker I describe fit none of those criteria. It's been pure bliss not having to work with someone like that, and helped me better understand what to avoid in the path to becoming a legitimate software architect.
Everything you say is true, but being melodramatic when asked to solve some irrelevant algorithmic problem is not a red flag. It could be he has been busy doing real work in the last ten years and not researching solved problems that are generally encapsulated in well tested existing modules.
Lack of respect for your team and not collaborating are real red flags. Soft skills are very important and not at all related to not being able to solve an obscure problem in an interview.
It's also pure bliss when you do whatever you like when you like with no overall architectural leadership putting constraints on your solutions. This, in my experience, has lead to whole firms going bust when reality strikes.
"It could be he has been busy doing real work in the last ten years and not researching solved problems that are generally encapsulated in well tested existing modules."
Sorry, I should have been more clear. We didn't ask the problem with the expectation of a perfect solution, it was more to gauge his problem solving skills. However as we were running out of time we asked him to implement a naive solution, which was met with a very negative response. Maybe I'm not explaining it properly but it gave the impression of a serious ego problem. Actually part of the criteria for our interview is to see how well a candidate can take feedback and make changes accordingly. They did poorly on that front.
Agree that architecture leadership is critical, especially when dealing with business teams that acquiesce to every single client demand with impunity.
Working on anything related to design and architecture with them was a disaster. They preferred waterfall over agile, didn't take feedback very well, was obsequious towards leadership but toxic towards the team they led, and would terminate collaboration with someone if there was disagreement.
The soft skills for an architect are essential, and I think that includes excellent communication skills, documentation, and ability to take feedback and constructive criticism. Needless to say, the coworker I describe fit none of those criteria. It's been pure bliss not having to work with someone like that, and helped me better understand what to avoid in the path to becoming a legitimate software architect.